Will nanobots destroy us? (I read they could go heywire and turn the world to mush)
― jel -- (jel), Monday, 21 April 2003 09:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― jel -- (jel), Monday, 21 April 2003 09:10 (twenty-two years ago)
"Join 151 other members of the Nanogirl News list for free. Subscribers recieve the Nanogirl News, a free news service summarizing current nanotech related news articles. Subscribers also recieve occasional single news briefs andevent postings. This group is not an open discussion list. Since 2000."
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Monday, 21 April 2003 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)
― cprek (cprek), Monday, 21 April 2003 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 21 April 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― cprek (cprek), Monday, 21 April 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)
I am going to record a concept album about nanotechnology.
― jel -- (jel), Monday, 21 April 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Monday, 21 April 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)
anyway maybe you should also check the trans-music yahoogroup."A group for transhumanists who enjoy talking about both the technical and non-technical aspects of music"
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)
There are dangers though and it would be foolish to ignore the fact. Bill Joy (president of Sun) published the following article in Wired a couple years back. Probably most here have read it or heard about it. In case not, here is a less optimistic view on nanotech:
Why the future doesn't need us.
― logjaman, Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― Leee (Leee), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:18 (twenty-two years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)
I don't see how this could happen to a "nanobot." Things of that scale are mostly used as sensors, and cannot real turn too much matter into mush, unless it is used to control much large mushing devices.
― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 12:00 (twenty-two years ago)
here an article that came to my mind that is answering him tit for tat:Embrace, Don't Relinquish, The Future by Max More"Extropy Institute head Max More finds Bill Joy's Wired essay uninformed, unworkable, and even unethical because it will slow down progress in medicine and other vital areas, he believes. "
There are dangers though and it would be foolish to ignore the fact.true, but on this topic the foresight.org guidelines are more useful than bill joy's morbid fantasies
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 12:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)
I hope Oxford University, Research Fellow Nick Bostrom will spring into action to help sorting things out (I think I will write him just to make sure)
― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)
― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)
― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 29 April 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40617000/jpg/_40617216_brush_nm_b203long.jpg
The group of lead scientist Pulickel Ajayan has previously shown how carbon nanotubes can be grown controllably, and the team has now used the trick to make nanobrushes shaped like toothbrushes, bottle brushes and cotton-buds.
The scientists grow bristles from hot, carbon-laden gas on to threads of carbon silicide finer than baby's hair.
Thin coats of gold steer the carbon away from the brush handle and on to the brush head.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 12 June 2005 22:45 (twenty years ago)
― k/l (Ken L), Sunday, 12 June 2005 23:00 (twenty years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 12 June 2005 23:00 (twenty years ago)
― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 13 June 2005 00:32 (twenty years ago)
― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:53 (twenty years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:59 (twenty years ago)
― C J (C J), Monday, 13 June 2005 03:52 (twenty years ago)