Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: "Keith_J._Emanuel.HENR801c"@xerox.com Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Utility Fog Message-ID: Date: 31 Aug 89 21:31:39 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 40 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Josh et al, Chris Phoenix make a valid point that you seemed to gloss over or treated a little too lightly for me ! The use of Nanotechnology is the most powerful proposition to come down the pipe in all of recorded history. It provides the power to recreate the world within the scope of our imagination. What a seductive possibility. BUT, as Chris points out, all of the repercussions of of our actions must be thought out. The nanograss idea is interesting, but the role of actual grass is pervasive. Modifing existing grass seems vastly safer and wiser than attempting to make a leap to all NEW nanograss. Our track record for anticipating the results of such moves have historically been poor. Keith J. Emanuel Xerox Corp. [I would go so far as to say that "we" have virtually never correctly anticipated the effects of a major technological innovation, indeed our hindsight as to the effects of accomplished innovations isn't even very good. My feeling is, we have a pretty good record in understanding and controlling physical developments, as far as their effect on the physical environment is concerned. I have no great qualms about continuing to develop along those lines at a relatively unrestrained pace. The technology we do not understand, and that is modifying our world far faster and more drastically, is ideas/information/social. We do not know whether a society is stable in the long run with television, for example... We have a hell of a lot slimmer chance of "anticipating the results of such moves" as a hypertext publishing medium than of playing with the grass. Now the question is, does this mean we shouldn't build such a medium? Isn't it more important to give up TV than CFC's? The printing press arguably caused 200 years of bitter religious war. Can we afford 200 years of total warfare starting with today's level of technology, much less nanotech? (ps, these are questions, not answers. My attempts at answers might surprize you.) --JoSH]