Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Down and Out in Nanoland Message-ID: Date: 15 Jan 91 22:19:45 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA Lines: 62 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > This may seem highly optimistic, but there was an article many >years ago in Analog entitled "Science Fiction is too Conservative" by >G. Harry Stine. It showed that even most of the wildest >extrapolations in science fiction drastically underestimated the rate >of change in technology. In this group anyway, we are at least using >exponential estimates for performance growth, but as I remember the >article, even e**x, as above, is a little pessimistic for most >observed curves. Put technical advances into these five categories: 1) Totally new and unexpected physical phenomena. 2) New mathematics that handles a brand new class of problems. 3) New theories that transcend some set of earlier theories, perhaps mathematically unifying the description of what was thought to be separate phenomena with one new and better description for all of them. 4) New mechanisms, techniques, devices, algorithms or implementation media that provide revolutionary improvements in operating parameters. 5) Improvements in the operating parameters of existing mechanisms, techniques, devices, algorithms or implementation media. Now estimate, for each category, the degree to which "futurists"--be they laymen, SF writers, profesionsal engineers, scientists, or whoever--usualy overestimate or underestimate the rate at which advances will occur in the given category, and the magnitude/significance of such advances. Generally, I would say that most SF writers are overly OPTIMISTIC with respect to categories 1 and 2, but generally overly PESSIMISTIC with respect to categories 4 and 5. On the other hand, professional scientists tend to be consistently too pessimistic--that's their job, after all. It seems to me that the "average layman" is much harder to characterize as consistently either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Their views tend to depend more on the subject matter or on how the advance will affect their lives than it does on the criteria used to define the named 5 categories. When considering the attitudes of laymen, one should take the following into account: The public is usually exposed to visions of the future in SF movies, TV shows and books. So the popular conception of what the future holds is certainly influenced by the views of SF writers. I have attempted to correct for this in my evaluation of laymen attitudes, which is why I am somewhat more tentative in my statements on that subject. It stands to reason, I would think, that category 4 and/or 5 advances are much more likely--and much more forseeable--than category 1, 2 or 3 advances. Category 1 and 2 advances are especially hard to forsee or give time estimates for. Category 3 advances, on the other hand, are like category 1 and/or 2 advances in some ways, but like category 4 and/or 5 advances in other ways. Of course, most of the advances under discussion in this newsgroup would be category 4 or category 5 advances. -- %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night, % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day; UUCP: lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas __Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me!