Eric Drexler: Physical Law and the Future of Nanotechnology

Dr. Eric Drexler speaks at the Inaugural Lecture of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology. Introduced by Professor Nick Bostrom.

Exploring a Timeless Landscape: Physical Law and the Future of Nanotechnology

In the inaugural lecture of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Eric Drexler explores the implications of physical law for the future potential of nanotechnology, then describes the prospects for productive technologies that can solve global problems on the scale of climate change.

Abstract:

A methodology grounded in physics and engineering can answer a limited yet illuminating range of questions about the potential of physical technology. This line of inquiry leads to a crucial question: What can physics tell us about the potential of advanced nanotechnologies? Well-established physical principles show that this potential embraces productive nanotechnologies that have the potential to transform the material basis of civilization. This prospect calls for re-evaluating both research opportunities and broader choices with consequences for the human future.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Cameron Keys]

Most critics of Drexler seem to be acting as if he were speaking of nanoassemblers that can be built at the present moment; whereas, I understand him to be advocating a RESEARCH PROGRAMME that could deliver such systems only at the culmination of perhaps a decade or more of intense basic research, R&D, and scaled-up production. His arguments seem to be that 1) the sorts of machines he models on computers are within the "possibility space," and 2) we can devise many sensible engineering paths.

[TheCerametal]

For a good response read this:

The Kurzweil AI site has good responses to that as have people who have visited the site.

[VeritasWorld]

I love listening to Dr. Drexler speak of the ribosome and imagining you Darwinist's saying, "Yeah, and all that happened by chance," as I laugh out loud.

[TheJamesrocket]

Well, perhaps you can send me them via PM.

[TheCerametal]

Wilson Ho, Hyojune Lee, "Single bond formation and characterization with a scanning tunneling microscope," Science 286(26 November 1999):1719-1722;

They did it with STMs like I said. It is only a matter of scaling it up to industrial assembly. It is nonsense to attack it like it was nonsense to attack early electronic computers and personal computer predictions.

[TheCerametal]

Youtube is not letting me post the links but there is proof and evidence galore of nanotech and mechanosynthesis. Its ridiculous at this point to claim it is not possible.

[TheJamesrocket]

'We have working biological molecular machines.' So in other words, soft nanotechnology that would have little in common with drexlers hard nanotechnology.

'We have already used STMs to bond individual atoms.' Perhaps, but there have been no experiments conducted (to my knowledge) which validate the possibility or plausability of mechanosynthesis. Certainly none of the examples given in the renowned october 2004 lecture (by robert freitas) would qualify.

[TheCerametal]

This is not an argument from ignorance. We have working biological molecular machines. If it works in biology, it can be made by humans. We have already used STMs to bond individual atoms, back in 1999 infact. Drexler style nanosystems are today where personal computer technology was in the early 1970s, we have even progressed beyond the 1950s room computer model. Assemblers are based on known chemistry and physics. Be skeptical about antigravity, not replicators.

[TheJamesrocket]

'Any naysayer against Molecular Manufacturing has to prove that we cannot build working programmable molecular machines.' First off, thats an argument from ignorance. Second, you are shifting the burden of proof: It is those who claim that something can be done (against the consensus) who must produce the evidence.