NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/sci/nanotech/569

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-15 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!att-out!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!planchet.rutgers.edu!nanotech
From: shearson!snark![e-mail] (Perry E. Metzger)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Rere:Snowballing tomk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:50:48 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Lines: 108
Approved: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> shearson!snark![e-mail] (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>You seem to forget another point; even an immature nanotechnology will
>>likely radically alter our lifespans.
>
>And how do you arrive at this idea Perry? Aren't you somehow sticking
>medical science advances in there with nanotechnological advances?
>(Sort of "And a Miracle Occurs" middle part?)

With even an immature nanotechnology, I could reverse heart attacks
and strokes just by cleaning out blocked vessels. I could clean out
arterial plaques in advance, thus reducing the risk of an incident.
Neither of these are very "high tech" uses of the technologies. I
could effectively destroy cancer cells by constructing nanomachines
that tear apart any membrane they find with a particular chemical
signature on it. This is not much more difficult.

With nanotechnology, I could likely construct devices to modulate
endocrine levels or replace functions of structures like the
substantia nigra in the brain (the loss of who's dopamine secretion
capacity causes parkinson's disease). None of these processes are
terribly complicated, either; we can almost do them now without
nanotech.

All this likely leads without any real major advances or any
complicated design to devices that wipe out most of the major causes
of early death in our society.

Without much more of a great extension, we can imagine the use of
targetted nanomachines to destroy retroviruses and a spectrum of other
pests, and the use of fully synthetic blood substitutes. We can also
imagine far better artificial hearts and lungs, ones that could be
used for years or decades without damaging the body. This would also
radically improve people's potential lifespans.

Going on to more complicated life extension questions, probing the
biochemical mechanisms of aging will be much easier with the tools
nanotechnology provides; the study of the problem will become far
simpler. Its also likely, I'd wager, that it can probably make
extraordinary advances.

>>And for those of us who don't like the idea of being caught dying just
>>a few decades away from nanotechnology, there is always cryonics...
>
>What about cryonics?

Cryonics provides those of us who don't make it to nanotechnology
"under our own power" to potentially make it there in suspension.

>>Given the fact that you can construct more assemblers with self
>>reproduction, why should we be restricted to so few assemblers?
>
>If you can't construct a single self replicating machine right now
>how do you presume to invent such a machine.

In 1920 people could have said "how do you propose to construct a
computer when you can't show me one".

This argument is extraordinarily weak, so weak that I don't even
consider it worth discussing.

>>Things have changed a lot since Nylon was designed 50 years ago. Now
>>we have computers to help us with our R&D. We also have several
>>interesting synergies: faster computers mean faster/better R&D.
>>Faster/better R&D means faster computers. Crude assemblers allow us to
>>build yet faster computers and yet better assemblers simulated with
>>those faster computers.
>
>OK, I'll bite. HOW will better assemblers make faster and better
>computers? You are again simply making an immense leap of faith.
>Compared to this Joan of Arc was a piker.

I can give you the simple example of Drexler's Rod Logic computer as a
proof of the idea that assemblers will allow the construction of
better and faster computers. Nothing in his design is in principle
unimplementable. I believe that, again, your argument is extremely
weak.

>You can't fight radical pessimism with rabid optimism. Try an
>look at the historical perspective. What science _ever_ delivered
>a substantial fraction of the grandiose dreams lent to it?

Through most of history. Compare the standard of living of the poorest
human in the US to the average human in Burkina Faso.

100 years ago the notion of machines that would transmit images from
place to place must have seemed extraordinary. A century ago the idea
of machines that could take the place of a human heart and permit
surgeons to work on the heart itself would have seemed grandiose. We
fly from place to place across the planet in hours, we build buildings
the height of mountains, we construct dams that block the worlds
largest rivers, we construct machines that can play chess, we build
devices to transmit moving images and sound across the world in a
moment with perfect fidelity, and you think that science hasn't
delivered on its promises? Where do you think you live?

>Do you notice the world as being all that utopian?

The per capita income of a person living in a high tech society, the
US, is approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of the
average inhabitant of many a third world country. I'd say our society
is pretty damn good; yes.

--
Perry Metzger        [e-mail]
--
          Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
             Extropian and Proud.