Re: Everyday Nanotechnology

From: Rory McLean (rory_at_romsys.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: 1 Dec 2004 00:19:58 GMT

In article <cogj2c03d5@enews3.newsguy.com>, Denis Loubet
<URL:mailto:dloubet@io.com> wrote:
>
> "Brandon" <contact@everydaynano.com> wrote in message
> news:coeb1t01q94@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> > Hello,
> > I am new to this group and thought I would start a discussion
> > concerning "everyday nanotechnology." I have been thinking about this
> > topic for some time and have even started developing a website
> > (everydaynano.com) about the topic. How do you think nanotechnology
> > will impact our regular or everyday lifestyles?
>
> It depends on how far it goes. Since its everyday impact could be anything
> from Extending the life of your tires to uploading yourself into utility fog
> you need to set some kind of limits for discussion. ;-)

If you assume that the diamondoid assembler is possible, but the
general-purpose assembler is a lot further off, does that get you
anywhere?

Or, that nanobots can be constructed, but needs vacuum and very
low temperatures in a factory, rather than a laser printer-sized
nanofab, being sufficient to make them?

If you assume that no self-assembly is possible in a room
temperature, shirt-sleeve, environment?

The first assumption gives you objects with great strength at low
cost, and probably doesn't do the international diamond market
any good.

The second allows 'nanotech in a can', which could be used for a
really wide range of things, which don't need self-assembly. This
would likely avoid the smart nanotech-saturated environment
beloved of some SF authors, which is likely best avoided until we
really, really, know what the interactions between humans (and
the environment we currently depend on) and nanotech are.

Is that the sort of starting point you might be looking for?

I'm of the opinion that we will get interesting and useful things
out of nanotech and MNT, but the general-purpose assembler, or
nanotech with self-assembly or not in a 'human' environment, may
be a lot further off, if possible at all. So, it may well be
worth talking about impact from earlier developments. 

-- 
Rory McLean
rory@romsys.demon.co.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Quantum Dots
    ... > general-purpose assembler is a lot further off, ... > would likely avoid the smart nanotech-saturated environment ... > really, really, know what the interactions between humans (and ... > the environment we currently depend on) and nanotech are. ...
    (sci.nanotech)
  • Re: Everyday Nanotechnology
    ... > out of nanotech and MNT, but the general-purpose assembler, or ... > nanotech with self-assembly or not in a 'human' environment, ...
    (sci.nanotech)
  • Re: Nano Morality
    ... agreed to by humans, and we need to be doing it now. ... I think its pretty clear the machines are now in control. ... Nanotech will be a further addition to that ecology, ... just a concept, its far less advanced than computers were 30 years ago, ...
    (sci.nanotech)
  • Communicating with nanotech
    ... Means of communicating with nanotech is something worth ... nanotech gives information to humans is a definite issue. ... implanted communications interfaces, ... that smell was the obvious human sense that nanotech would ...
    (sci.nanotech)
  • Re: Communicating with nanotech
    ... nanotech gives information to humans is a definite issue. ... use warning smells, to say things like "this nanotech system has ... communication from external nano devices.) ...
    (sci.nanotech)