article about Nanotechnology on rationalwiki

[chris0033547]

I just wanted to hear your opinions about the following article on RationalWiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology

Is the kind of technology, Drexler proposes, really so "magical"? I mean our own bodies consist of millions of different cells (our biological microrobots), which are somehow coordinating each other, can reproduce, can deliberately move around the body (- some of them -) and manage to work together thus giving rise to our macroscale bodies. Aren't we ourselves the living empirical evidence that Molecular Nanotechnology is possible? And yet the above article is written in a rather negative tone. But is such a tone justified?

(The only field, where I cannot think of a fitting analogy from nature is hylonanotechnology.)

[Drashner1]

Rynn is the resident RL nanotech expert here, but to throw my 2c in on this:

The article (IMO) seems to fall into the same trap (or con game) that Scientific American did some years ago re nanotech: treat the idea of molecular nanotech and manufacturing with ridicule and contempt, make fun of Drexler - and then quietly include positive mention of things that are essentially what Drexler and Co. are talking about, but apparently its OK as long as we don't actually call it that.

In the case of SciAm, they tended to run this along the lines of 'someday we may use nanotech to produce tiny submarines which could clear out clogged arteries or do other amazing stuff' along with several paragraphs attacking Drexler's conceptions of nanotech, even though what they just got done talking up was in line (or close to) what he imagined and described.

In the wiki article here, we have various shots taken at molecular manufacturing, but then near the end we have this bit:

If nanomachines are built, they will work much more like the currently-known nanomachines — antibodies and proteins and so forth, restricted to catalysing only one family of reactions — and more complicated nanomachines will be closer to the size of biological cells.

Mechanical nanocomputers are theoretically possible, and research is steadily getting there. So far there's a 300nm electromechanical reed relay gate[16][17] and an inverter that runs at 500kHz.[18] The application is environments that would trash electronics, e.g. high temperatures. For comparison, current computers' electronic transistors are on the order of 22nm (as of 2012) and mainstream consumer computer chips run at between 1GHz and 4GHz or so.

That's not to say that this stuff isn't insanely cool. For instance, sending in a specially-designed killer molecule to cure cancer.[19] Holy crap!

It should be noted that there are examples of self replicating machines that dig into the ground and vacuum up the atmosphere. They sense the available resources of the surrounding territory and assemble useful products, even erecting mini solar panels to assist the process as well as producing the next generation of their initial seeding mechanism, all fully automated and largely unattended. They are called things like "tomato plants".

Which for all intents and purposes is describing early developments or potentials in line with what Drexler has described. So Drexler is full of crap, but let me now tell you how we're actually starting to move toward at least some of what he predicted and conflating that with a proof of concept of something much more capable (a plant) that indicates what might someday be achieved. Have your cake and eat it too, much?

By this logic heavier than air flight is impossible and Leonardo da Vinci was an idiot because he imagined flying based on flapping wings rather than the fixed wings and engines we actually ended up using.

My 2c worth,

Todd

[stevebowers]

I'm an inveterate skeptic, and agree with quite a lot of what they are saying - but only for the near-term future. We shall no doubt see a lot of really interesting technology in our lifetimes, a small fraction of which will operate on the nanoscale- we've already got some of that. But the really radically advanced nanotech that Drexler imagines is centuries away - and some of it will operate in a completely different way to how he imagines it.

[JohnnyYesterday]

I just wanted to hear your opinions about the following article on RationalWiki:

Unfortunately, The Rational Wiki is a real mixed-bag. This isn't the only entry on there that I've seen that is liberally loaded with strawman arguments and other intellectual bullcrap. Written by Carl Sagan or James Randi, it wasn't.

I'll direct you to here.

So far as we know right now, Drexler's ideas of what molecular machines could do are theoretically accurate.

It's also worth noting, as Drexler himself did in Nanosystems, pointing out specific examples, that some of what he analyses in the work isn't necessarily what will or should be done, simply that as a worst case scenario [whatever] could work. An example of this is nanomechanical rod logic computers. Unsurprisingly, Drexler actually thinks that molecular manufactured computers would be based on solid state systems.

He also tends to be conservative by an order of magnitude, sometimes more, below what physics says should be possible.

[Rynn]

I've only skimmed the article but I'd say it's entirely fair. Drexler's nanotechnology vision, in the manner that he described it, is flawed and there is huge hype and misconception about what nanotechnology is. You see it all the time with media outlets constantly attaching artistic impression pictures of microscopic robots onto articles that aren't talking about that at all, most of the time it's just a new type of drug-nanocarrier system.

That's not to say that the wildest dreams of nanotechnology are impossible; medical microbots, self replicating robots, universal assemblers etc. But it's certainly not as simple or mainstream as "nanotech enthusiasts" (for lack of a better term) make it out to be. Professionally I think a lot of people within the field are sick and tired of news and social media misreporting everything to fit within visions laid down by cranks like Kurzweil.

We can't really say what the future will bring. Anyone who thinks they can is either lying or predicting something really simple (or just lucky). So perhaps one day there will be all the stuff Drexler and others have imagined. But it wont operate anything like what we understand today. For example; I can totally see how we might have very advanced bionanotechnology manufacturing in the form of synthetic biology biorefineries. Likewise gene-modified cell therapy could give rise to the type of treatments medical microbots talk are hypothesised to bring. But at the moment it's completely fair to dismiss people who talk about these things as though they are currently or imminently possible.

In terms of OA I think what we have is fine. We posit the development of Drexler-esque nanotechnology as occurring over a very long time scale and we don't go into any real specifics about how it works.

[JohnnyYesterday]

I've only skimmed the article but I'd say it's entirely fair. Drexler's nanotechnology vision, in the manner that he described it, is flawed and there is huge hype and misconception about what nanotechnology is.

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Drexler's books?

There's a huge difference between what he, Ralph Merkle, and other associates have actually said vs. the popular misconceptions. He actually wrote a book a few years ago trying to kill these stupid memes. I wish him the best, but once false ideas get out into the world and run wild, good luck trying to stamp them out.

Going back to the early '80s, Drexler has been an advocate for protein engineering and synthetic biology.

[Drashner1]

I've only skimmed the article but I'd say it's entirely fair. Drexler's nanotechnology vision, in the manner that he described it, is flawed and there is huge hype and misconception about what nanotechnology is. You see it all the time with media outlets constantly attaching artistic impression pictures of microscopic robots onto articles that aren't talking about that at all, most of the time it's just a new type of drug-nanocarrier system.

I would disagree about the article being fair. In fact I have a hard time taking any 'article' seriously that includes slang terms like 'bollocks' and ad hominem attacks like 'fanboys' in support of its position.

While I don't disagree that Drexler's vision may not turn out to accurate or exactly what we actually end up with in terms of nanotechnology, I would point out that the same could be said of Leonardo da Vinci's ideas about flight and various other things. While it took centuries for anything like his ideas to be achieved and the actual functionality of the technologies don't operate much like what he envisioned - we still acknowledge that he came up with the basic idea and attempted to imagine how it might work. We don't call him names, nor do we denigrate him for not getting it exactly right.

Incidentally, Drexler also makes a point of crediting Feynman as originating the idea in Engines of Creation and some of his other writings. What others may or may not choose to say about it isn't really Drexler's problem.

That's not to say that the wildest dreams of nanotechnology are impossible; medical microbots, self replicating robots, universal assemblers etc. But it's certainly not as simple or mainstream as "nanotech enthusiasts" (for lack of a better term) make it out to be. Professionally I think a lot of people within the field are sick and tired of news and social media misreporting everything to fit within visions laid down by cranks like Kurzweil.

While I can sympathize with the frustration you describe, I would also point out that Drexler is not in control of the media. Blaming him for what they may or may not do isn't really fair IMO.

We can't really say what the future will bring. Anyone who thinks they can is either lying or predicting something really simple (or just lucky).

We can however try to predict what the future might bring. And in doing so we might even inspire some people to actually make some of those predictions happen. Cf some documentaries I've seen in which some of the people who invented cell phones and other devices talk about being inspired by seeing Star Trek or other SF movies or books.

I would suggest that people who never try to predict or imagine the future aren't very likely to do much to make it happen, including providing funding for research into new (and possibly revolutionary) sciences and technologies.

Anyway,

Todd

[Rynn]

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Drexler's books?

There's a huge difference between what he, Ralph Merkle, and other associates have actually said vs. the popular misconceptions. He actually wrote a book a few years ago trying to kill these stupid memes. I wish him the best, but once false ideas get out into the world and run wild, good luck trying to stamp them out.

Going back to the early '80s, Drexler has been an advocate for protein engineering and synthetic biology.

I read engines of creation as a teenager. Didn't bother reading any more Drexler, he honestly only ever came up in my nanotechnology courses as a lesson in history and miscommunication of science to the public.

I would disagree about the article being fair. In fact I have a hard time taking any 'article' seriously that includes slang terms like 'bollocks' and ad hominem attacks like 'fanboys' in support of its position.

I didn't mean fair from that position, it's clearly on the level of newspaper quality but overall I didn't find much of a problem with its sentiment on the science.

While I don't disagree that Drexler's vision may not turn out to accurate or exactly what we actually end up with in terms of nanotechnology, I would point out that the same could be said of Leonardo da Vinci's ideas about flight and various other things. While it took centuries for anything like his ideas to be achieved and the actual functionality of the technologies don't operate much like what he envisioned - we still acknowledge that he came up with the basic idea and attempted to imagine how it might work. We don't call him names, nor do we denigrate him for not getting it exactly right.

Don't disagree with you there.

While I can sympathize with the frustration you describe, I would also point out that Drexler is not in control of the media. Blaming him for what they may or may not do isn't really fair IMO.

I don't blame him that much but he should have to take responsibility for what his popular science books have perpetuated about the field. Yes it's not totally his fault but time and time again scientists write pop sci books that over sensationalise the field and are bound to be distorted. I believe Drexler himself acknowledges his mistake by admitting he should never have started the grey goo argument.

We can however try to predict what the future might bring. And in doing so we might even inspire some people to actually make some of those predictions happen. Cf some documentaries I've seen in which some of the people who invented cell phones and other devices talk about being inspired by seeing Star Trek or other SF movies or books.

Absolutely, I wasn't referring to this though. More the Kurzweil-esque predictions people have that in specific years specific technologies will come about and be used in specific ways. Inspiration and planning are very different to the type of predictions that come out of the popular understanding of nanotechnology.

[chris0033547]

While I don't disagree that Drexler's vision may not turn out to accurate or exactly what we actually end up with in terms of nanotechnology, I would point out that the same could be said of Leonardo da Vinci's ideas about flight and various other things. While it took centuries for anything like his ideas to be achieved and the actual functionality of the technologies don't operate much like what he envisioned - we still acknowledge that he came up with the basic idea and attempted to imagine how it might work. We don't call him names, nor do we denigrate him for not getting it exactly right.

Don't disagree with you there.

Thanks for your opinions, everyone! After reading through the discussion the quotes above are my opinion on the whole issue as well. Who knows, maybe a medical nanoimmune system consisting of autonomous microscale bots won't even be necessary; For example I really liked the idea in this article here from Ryan:

http://www.orionsarm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1440

Autonomous microbots might be difficult to program and control but attaching an external device to the patient's body, which injects tiny flexible tendrils into the body, which can then seek out the source of an ailment and fix it or be used for diagnostics, seems to make some of these problems a little simpler. The "command & control" - problem is outsourced to an external device of arbitrary size and complexity instead of trying to "cram" all this complexity into a tiny bot.

Who knows, maybe medical devices like this will be developed first before anything like what Drexler or Freitas (e.g. microbivore) suggest, will (or could) be developed.

[JohnnyYesterday]

I read engines of creation as a teenager. Didn't bother reading any more Drexler, he honestly only ever came up in my nanotechnology courses as a lesson in history and miscommunication of science to the public.

You should then, but not his popular science books. You should pick up a used copy of Nanosystems, which is a slightly expanded version of his MIT doctoral dissertation.