Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg
From: glg@sfsup.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Bioproduced nanocomputers
Message-ID: <2342@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Nov-87 17:59:36 EST
Article-I.D.: sfsup.2342
Posted: Wed Nov 11 17:59:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Nov-87 13:31:10 EST
References: <8711052113.AA01020@bu-it.bu.edu>
Reply-To: glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xmpj20000-G.Gleason)
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Information Systems
Lines: 128

In article <8711052113.AA01020@bu-it.bu.edu> tower@bu-cs.bu.edu writes:
>In article <15300@bu-cs.BU.EDU> you write:
> > From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
> >     People who have read _Engines_of_Creation_ will remember that
> > Drexler made numerous predictions of fantastic things we could do with
> > nanotechnology (NT): life extension, interactive design systems
	. . .
> > life 'works'.    ...     I feel that Drexler's envisioned explosion of
> > NT remaking the world suddenly is simply not going to happen. An
> > analogy is the old 'nuclear power too cheap to meter' idea. Comments?

>BTW, EoC is out in paperback now.  It's a book I recommend highly to
>both the curious and the concerned citizen types.

I recently bought the paperback, and I agree with your recomendation,
in fact I would place it in the "must read" catagory.

His arguments are very well thought out.  I agree to some extent with
Jonathan; I remain skeptical, but then so is Drexler.  He points out
(in the introduction I think) that it is impossible to predict the
direction of scientific discovery, because if we could, we would
already have the answer, and there are some aspects of his predictions
that rest on future scientific discoveries.

Often when reading EoC, I would feel that some point he makes is
pretty way out and hard to accept, but I would also have to admit
that it was plausable, and he would often temper these points by
bringing the discussion back to the more solid points, pointing out
that even these have many of the radical implication he is discussing.
The most significant points rest on well-understood science.

I have not finished the book yet, but I can see no gaping holes in
his reasoning.  Does anyone else who has read it have any major
objections?

Gerry Gleason
----- News saved at 11 Nov 87 22:55:29 GMT
In article <8711052113.AA01020@bu-it.bu.edu> tower@bu-cs.bu.edu writes:
>In article <15300@bu-cs.BU.EDU> you write:
> > From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
> >     People who have read _Engines_of_Creation_ will remember that
> > Drexler made numerous predictions of fantastic things we could do with
> > nanotechnology (NT): life extension, interactive design systems
	. . .
> > life 'works'.    ...     I feel that Drexler's envisioned explosion of
> > NT remaking the world suddenly is simply not going to happen. An
> > analogy is the old 'nuclear power too cheap to meter' idea. Comments?

>BTW, EoC is out in paperback now.  It's a book I recommend highly to
>both the curious and the concerned citizen types.

I recently bought the paperback, and I agree with your recomendation,
in fact I would place it in the "must read" catagory.

His arguments are very well thought out.  I agree to some extent with
Jonathan; I remain skeptical, but then so is Drexler.  He points out
(in the introduction I think) that it is impossible to predict the
direction of scientific discovery, because if we could, we would
already have the answer, and there are some aspects of his predictions
that rest on future scientific discoveries.

Often when reading EoC, I would feel that some point he makes is
pretty way out and hard to accept, but I would also have to admit
that it was plausable, and he would often temper these points by
bringing the discussion back to the more solid points, pointing out
that even these have many of the radical implication he is discussing.
The most significant points rest on well-understood science.

I have not finished the book yet, but I can see no gaping holes in
his reasoning.  Does anyone else who has read it have any major
objections?

Gerry Gleason
Sender: 
Reply-To: glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xmpj20000-G.Gleason)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Information Systems
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: comp.info-futures
Subject: Re: Bioproduced nanocomputers
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <8711052113.AA01020@bu-it.bu.edu>
Sender: 
Reply-To: glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xmpj20000-G.Gleason)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Information Systems
Keywords: 

In article <8711052113.AA01020@bu-it.bu.edu> tower@bu-cs.bu.edu writes:
>In article <15300@bu-cs.BU.EDU> you write:
> > From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
> >     People who have read _Engines_of_Creation_ will remember that
> > Drexler made numerous predictions of fantastic things we could do with
> > nanotechnology (NT): life extension, interactive design systems
	. . .
> > life 'works'.    ...     I feel that Drexler's envisioned explosion of
> > NT remaking the world suddenly is simply not going to happen. An
> > analogy is the old 'nuclear power too cheap to meter' idea. Comments?

>BTW, EoC is out in paperback now.  It's a book I recommend highly to
>both the curious and the concerned citizen types.

I recently bought the paperback, and I agree with your recomendation,
in fact I would place it in the "must read" catagory.

His arguments are very well thought out.  I agree to some extent with
Jonathan; I remain skeptical, but then so is Drexler.  He points out
(in the introduction I think) that it is impossible to predict the
direction of scientific discovery, because if we could, we would
already have the answer, and there are some aspects of his predictions
that rest on future scientific discoveries.

Often when reading EoC, I would feel that some point he makes is
pretty way out and hard to accept, but I would also have to admit
that it was plausable, and he would often temper these points by
bringing the discussion back to the more solid points, pointing out
that even these have many of the radical implication he is discussing.
The most significant points rest on well-understood science.

I have not finished the book yet, but I can see no gaping holes in
his reasoning.  Does anyone else who has read it have any major
objections?

Gerry Gleason