Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!CCH.BBN.COM!bnevin From: bnevin@CCH.BBN.COM.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: nano-engineering Message-ID: <8706290634.AA01424@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 22-Jun-87 11:03:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706290634.AA01424 Posted: Mon Jun 22 11:03:03 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 02:14:23 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 113 Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com There is a good summary article in _Whole Earth Review_ (Spring 1987), pp. 8-14: A Technology of Tiny Things, Nanotechnics and Civilization, by K. Eric Drexler. The bio in the footnote at the beginning says Drexler got his SB from MIT in interdisciplinary science, followed by a Master's in Aeronautics and Astronautics also at MIT. Recently he founded the MIT Nanotechnology Study Group to develop the science described in the article and book. Some excerpts from the former: Whatever is, is obviously possible. Life is. Therefore that demonstrates the possibility of molecular machines able to build other molecular machines--the essence of both life and a new method called nanotechnology. . . . Whatever obeys natural law is also possible. Science now understands the laws of ordinary matter and energy well enough for most engineering purposes. Nanotechnology will enable us to build new kinds of things. Physical laws let us calculate what some of these things will be able to do. The basic idea of nanotechnology is straightforward. . . . Molecular machines are simply machines made of molecular-scale parts having carefully arranged atoms. . . . Nanotechnology assemblers will be molecular machines that grab reactive molecules and bring them together in a controlled way, building up a complex structure a few atoms at a time. . . . There is no new science in nanotechnology, only new engineering. The possibility of nanotechnology was implicit in the science known over 30 years ago, though no one saw it then. During the 1940s and 1950s, biochemistry revealed more and more of the molecular machinery of the cell. In 1959, physicist Richard Feynman touched on a similar idea in a talk: he spoke of using small machines to build smaller machines ( . . . and so on). He suggested that the smallest machines would be able to "put atoms down where a chemist says" to make a "chemical substance." But Feynman didn't explain how these machines were to work, and said they "will really be useless," because chemists will be able to make whatever they want without them. Decades passed with little followup. [Molecular biology advanced, Drexler's work at MIT indicated in winter of 1976 the possibility of "what we now call assemblers"; he describes several paths for evolution of nanotechnics from present science and technology. --BN] As you can see, the starting point will make little difference. All roads lead to assemblers, and assemblers will let us make almost anything we are clever enough to design. . . . In a world full of competing companies and governments, only global disaster or global domination could block the advance of technology. This seems to be a fundamental principle; if so, it must guide our plans. . . . What can nanotechnology do for us? Almost anything we want, in physical terms. Once we have the software to direct them, replicating assemblers can build almost anything, including more of themselves, without human labor. Because they will handle matter atom by atom, as trees do, they can be as clean as trees, or cleaner. They need not produce smoke or sludge or toxic chemical byproducts. . . . One important application will be the further miniaturization of computers. Detailed study shows that assemblers could build the equivalent of a large, modern computer in about 1/1000 of the volume of a typical human cell. This could be a mechanical computer (they're easier to analyze than electronic computers), but moving parts on this scale can be small and fast enough to make the computer faster than today's electronic machines. . . . Drexler also writes at some length about the enormous potential for danger and disruption of society and biosphere. Our survival may depend on our ability to tell sense from nonsense regarding a complex technology that doesn't exist yet. The nonsense will be abundant, no matter what we do: any field on the borders of science fiction, quantum mechanics, and biology is well positioned to import a lot of prefabricated crap; any field where experiments and experience aren't yet possible is going to have great trouble getting rid of that crap. When someone says "nanotechnology" and begins to expound, beware! . . . a political movement to deal with nanotechnology must be a movement to guide advance, not to stop it. I've already argued that attempts to stop it would be futile; here are some reasons for thinking such efforts would be socially irresponsible. I leave this and much more for the interested reader to follow up in the Spring issue of WER. (This same issue by the way has Shank's `Reality Club' contribution on why math should not be taught in public schools. As you know from his AI work, it cannot be because he dislikes math or is bad at it.) Bruce Nevin bn@cch.bbn.com (This is my own personal communication, and in no way expresses or implies anything about the opinions of my employer, its clients, etc.)