X-Message-Number: 18588
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:27:38 -0800
From: "John Grigg" <>
Subject: the nanotech/cryonics connection
This is the start of a fascinating thread from the extrolist about the
challenges facing Drexlerian nanotech and cryonics.
best wishes,
John
Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization
From: Robert J. Bradbury ()
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 09:43:15 MST
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, John Grigg wrote:
> Between the Timeship and now this project, Saul Kent and Bill Faloon are
> really making a mark on cryonics. Of course, they have been for years the
> biggest patrons of the movement.
But there is still a lot of resistance out there, e.g.
> Josh Wolfe, co-founder and managing partner of Lux Capital ...
>
> On the more far-out side, one business proposal Wolfe recently saw involved
> cryogenically freezing the deceased and bringing them back with nanobots in
> the future.
>
> As far as Wolfe is concerned, any technology based on the "Drexlerian vision
of
> nanotech"--that is, the self-replicating assembler--should be put in its
place.
Src: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-833739.html
We are not "over the hump" yet by any stretch of the imagination.
Robert
Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization
From:
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 12:18:18 MST
Robert Bradbury writes:
> Src: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-833739.html
> > Josh Wolfe, co-founder and managing partner of Lux Capital ...
> >
> > On the more far-out side, one business proposal Wolfe recently saw
> > involved cryogenically freezing the deceased and bringing them back with
> > nanobots in the future.
> >
> > As far as Wolfe is concerned, any technology based on the "Drexlerian
> > vision of nanotech"--that is, the self-replicating assembler--should be
> > put in its place.
>
> We are not "over the hump" yet by any stretch of the imagination.
I have felt for some time that cryonics was a lead weight dragging down
acceptance of Drexlerian nanotech. My theory is that people have an
overwhelmingly negative emotional reaction to cryonics, in part because
it implies that the death of their loved ones was preventable, and this
carries over to any technology which would seem to make cryonics credible.
A couple of years ago, Foresight essentially declared victory in the
war for acceptance of nanotechnology. There were conferences held every
year, one or more respected journals, government funding was ramping up,
articles in business journals. By all accounts it was now an accepted
future technology.
But maybe that was premature. We are seeing a backlash, a rearguard
fighting action against the original vision of nanotech. Opponents are
trying to build a firewall against Drexlerian mechanosynthesis, drawing a
distinction between their prosaic nanotech and Drexler's far-out visions.
They prefer to focus on biotech, on nanoparticles, on MEMS, on bulk
materials engineering at the nanoscale. All these things can be done
today, in fact they are the natural consequence of existing technologies
just extending their capabilities a bit. They want to get funding for
their current research. In this environment there is no reason to even
think about blue sky dreams like eternal perfect health, or nightmares
like engineered malignant replicators.
I think Foresight needs to go back to its roots and shore up the
foundations. It's not enough to have "nanotechnology" initiatives showing
up everywhere. Few of those efforts are making significant progress
towards Drexler's machine-based models. Foresight needs to remind
people that there is more to nanotech than making ultra-fine powders
for smoother paint. We have to keep our eye on the prize, a technology
which can utterly revolutionize every aspect of the world. If research
is not moving us towards that goal, it should not receive funding under
nanotech grants, even if it happens to involve little tiny pieces.
Hal
Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization
From: Anders Sandberg ()
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 12:18:40 MST
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:18:18AM -0800, wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago, Foresight essentially declared victory in the
> war for acceptance of nanotechnology. There were conferences held every
> year, one or more respected journals, government funding was ramping up,
> articles in business journals. By all accounts it was now an accepted
> future technology.
>
> But maybe that was premature. We are seeing a backlash, a rearguard
> fighting action against the original vision of nanotech. Opponents are
> trying to build a firewall against Drexlerian mechanosynthesis, drawing a
> distinction between their prosaic nanotech and Drexler's far-out visions.
A very good point. I think partly this is because a lot of the
researchers and institutions working under the nanotech
banner moved in there as the field became "sexy" and well funded. They
have no real ties to Drexler's ideas, and are mostly interested in
pursuing their own research interests.
> I think Foresight needs to go back to its roots and shore up the
> foundations. It's not enough to have "nanotechnology" initiatives showing
> up everywhere. Few of those efforts are making significant progress
> towards Drexler's machine-based models. Foresight needs to remind
> people that there is more to nanotech than making ultra-fine powders
> for smoother paint. We have to keep our eye on the prize, a technology
> which can utterly revolutionize every aspect of the world. If research
> is not moving us towards that goal, it should not receive funding under
> nanotech grants, even if it happens to involve little tiny pieces.
I think this is a good example of why no field - be it nanotechnology or
transhumanism - seeking dramatic results in the long run, can afford not
to constantly work on its foundations and visions, show that they are
not just relevant but actually important to guide action.
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization
From: Eugene Leitl ()
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 13:02:17 MST
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 wrote:
> I have felt for some time that cryonics was a lead weight dragging down
> acceptance of Drexlerian nanotech. My theory is that people have an
> overwhelmingly negative emotional reaction to cryonics, in part because
> it implies that the death of their loved ones was preventable, and this
> carries over to any technology which would seem to make cryonics
> credible.
It is not that simple, but for all practical purposes you can consider
cryonics to be cursed, and everything it touches tainted.
> A couple of years ago, Foresight essentially declared victory in the war
> for acceptance of nanotechnology. There were conferences held every
> year, one or more respected journals, government funding was ramping up,
> articles in business journals. By all accounts it was now an accepted
> future technology.
Nanotechnology, not molecular manufacturing. "Nanotechnology" has suffered
namespace DoS by dilution/overuse.
> But maybe that was premature. We are seeing a backlash, a rearguard
> fighting action against the original vision of nanotech. Opponents are
I'm not seeing this at all. In fact in the passed years opposition to
drextech was considerably tougher, and those voices get progressively
extinguished as our capababilities in characterisation and petty
fabrication (one grad-student-afternoon) of nanodevices have been ramping
up. Future never looked brighter.
> trying to build a firewall against Drexlerian mechanosynthesis, drawing
> a distinction between their prosaic nanotech and Drexler's far-out
> visions. They prefer to focus on biotech, on nanoparticles, on MEMS, on
The worse for the fools. That way they won't even get to bask in reflected
credit.
> bulk materials engineering at the nanoscale. All these things can be
> done today, in fact they are the natural consequence of existing
> technologies just extending their capabilities a bit. They want to get
> funding for their current research. In this environment there is no
> reason to even think about blue sky dreams like eternal perfect health,
> or nightmares like engineered malignant replicators.
Well, this has been going on for many years now. Funding is a lot like a
scam, based on participating in fabricating consensual realities.
> I think Foresight needs to go back to its roots and shore up the
> foundations. It's not enough to have "nanotechnology" initiatives
> showing up everywhere. Few of those efforts are making significant
Right. We need molecular manufacturing initiatives.
> progress towards Drexler's machine-based models. Foresight needs to
> remind people that there is more to nanotech than making ultra-fine
> powders for smoother paint. We have to keep our eye on the prize, a
Not all of them are evil, you know. Some of the nanoclusters could be
useful for precursors of molecular devices.
> technology which can utterly revolutionize every aspect of the world.
> If research is not moving us towards that goal, it should not receive
> funding under nanotech grants, even if it happens to involve little tiny
> pieces.
Foresight now deals in two-digit megabuck grants? Wow. Nobody told me.
Check out Cupid School where you will learn from Matchmaker's
best and brightest. Good Luck!
http://ecard.matchmaker.com/cupid0202/cupid0202.html
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18588