jellinghaus-robert@CS.YALE.EDU (Rob Jellinghaus) (03/29/89)
This posting is the result of a letter I received today from Chris Peterson, of the Foresight Institute, regarding a discussion that took place some time ago in alt.cyberpunk. I would like to set the record straight on some points, using information from the letter (which was greatly appreciated and very courteous); and I would like to repeat an invitation which I originally made. As a brief recap, the subject under discussion is nanotechnology, which is a term coined by K. Eric Drexler, now of Stanford. Nanotechnology is the field of research dealing with the creation of molecular-scale machinery. sci.nanotech is a newsgroup devoted to discussion of developments relevant to nanotechnology, the short- and long-range implications of nano- tech, and the possible implementation of various nanotechnological tools. The reference cited below is Drexler's _Engines of Creation_, Anchor Press Library of Science, 1986, the best lay reference to nanotechnology yet written. (The Foresight Institute is an organization dedicated to enhancing awareness of these ideas.) I am posting this to sci.nanotech for obvious reasons; to alt.cyberpunk because that is where the discussion under consideration originally occurred; and to comp.society.futures because I believe the subject matter may be of interest in that group as well. Followups directed to sci.nanotech to reduce bandwidth usage. The lines below are taken from a posting of mine to alt.cyberpunk. My commentary is indented. --------------------------- In article <7359@polya.Stanford.EDU> phipps@polya.Stanford.EDU (Geoffrey Phipps) writes: >In article <52533@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, jellinghaus-robert@CS.YALE.EDU (Rob Jellinghaus) writes: >> For a technical discussion of the developments that will bring this about, >> PLEASE read _Engines_Of_Creation_. I can't stress this strongly enough: >> technology is going to bring about changes within our lifetime that dwarf >> everything humanity has ever achieved. It is critical that people learn >> this NOW, rather than later, as the choices we make today may well influence >> whether we survive the transition. >> >> Vinge tries to get around the problem of inabilility to extrapolate by >> creating worlds of people that have been left behind by the future, people >> that are still recognizable as humans, that still think in ways we can >> understand. The real future will be much wilder than any science fiction >> that has ever been, or can be, written. (Written by us, today, that is...) >> And if you don't believe this, read EoC, then come back and debate with >> Eric and myself. Please. People need to know. This is extracted from an earlier posting of mine in a discussion on "realistic" (i.e. "likely to happen") science fiction. >Disclaimer: I have not actually read the book, BUT I attended a talk >Mr Drexler gave at Stanford, plus I've had some discussions with >pro-Drexlerites. The almost unanimous opinion of Stanford's Computer >Science department is that this guy is a salesman, and has little grasp >on physical reality. He triggered all our bullsh*t filters. This claim of Mr. Phipps was cited in Ms. Peterson's letter. She had read an archive of the discussion on alt.cyberpunk, and she wrote the following in response: "Second, be assured that the [above] statement by graduate student Geoffrey Phipps... is quite inaccurate. He may feel this way, but he most assuredly does not speak for the department. Perhaps a better spokesman is the Chairman, Prof. Nils Nilsson. He repeatedly requested Eric to teach a class on nanotechnology for the department, and Eric did so last spring. Prof. Nilsson expressed himself as well satisfied with the result. He is also sponsoring our use of the Stanford facilities for our conference on nanotechnology this fall. "I hope you will pass these facts along in the newsgroup...." I trust I am doing so satisfactorily. Could you (or another anti-Drexlerian) *please* post some anti-Drexler arguments to sci.nanotech? If this is all really a bogus idea, I'd like to see the fight the nanotechies put up. I am reopening this invitation. I have encountered much skepticism about nanotechnology's claims to be a valid prediction of technology's future development, but I have seen little solid criticism. I would very much like to see more. >Still might be good material to base a Science >FICTION story on, but as for Science PREDICTION, forget it. I'd like to see the result of the above combat before I decide on that for myself. >Maybe you should still read it anyway, so that you can argue with me :-). "it" is of course _Engines_. >Geoff Phipps, >Stanford Computer Science Department >phipps@solitary.stanford.edu internet Rob Jellinghaus --------------------------- I earnestly request (well-reasoned, non-flame) attacks on Drexler's thesis. There have been too few for my taste, and too much vague skepticism. Nanotech is too important to be dismissed: better that it be attacked from all sides, to prove itself to its detractors; or that it be discredited, and free its supporters for better causes. I apologize for restricting followups, but this discussion could be tiresome to readers of alt.cyberpunk and comp.soc.futures (although I hope many will follow to sci.nanotech, which is altogether too cheery and up on nanotech; it could use many more devil's advocates). Of course, discussion of the field at this point is quite premature, as it is all admittedly speculation; but it is one of the solidest and most firmly-based pieces of speculation of which I am aware. If there are holes in Drexler's thesis, they need to be exposed now; if there are none, then many more people need to learn of it, *now*. Thanks for listening. Now speak up! Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_