Some think that Nanotechnology will save the world and help terraform 
Mars I have my doubts.  Anyone know?

25 responses total.

I don't think anyone can know until we've tried it out.

Well, do we *have* nanotechnology, as defined (loosely)?  By this I mean the
actual little machines that can reproduce, etc.

Really?  I didn't know that!  What are they being used for?

Er, make that "don't".  Heh.  Sort of changes my response, doesn't it?

No, wait, I didn't read my response very carefully either.  I was asking if
we had such technology, not saying we did.  I don't think we do have such tech
yet.

I don't either.   It's possible that such tech, if we had it, would make
terraforming Mars easier.  No plan for terraforming mars that I've seen
would be easy or fast.  All would take at least a hundred years, or so.

Nanotechnology would be almost "indistinguishable from magic" in
terms of what it could do.  Thing is, when you could re-engineer
your body to handle Mars (or Ceres, for that matter), would there
be any further interest in terraforming Mars?
 
I'm sure that's a huge understatement of the way that the issues and
the human condition itself would be wrenched around by nanotechnology.

I doubt re-engineering your body would be fast or easy, or cheap, and so 
it would likely be a one-way street, if it happened at all.  Therefore, 
no one could come back from Mars.  That's not acceptible to execs of 
companies paying for these things, so Mars would get terraformed.

Incidentally, we already have technology that's indistinguishable from 
magic.  Try a television or a computer.  How about a microwave oven?  Or 
maybe a telephone?

Re #8, #9:  We already know much of how a human body works, so if
anything I would expect the change back to "normal" (whatever that
will mean, in that world!) would be the easier and cheaper.  To live
on Mars you'd need adaptations to a 7-millibar CO2 atmosphere at
freezing temperatures.  Maybe oxygen storage in special organs, huge
photosynthetic wings, and blood and cytoplasm full of propylene glycol
could do it.  This would let you go and roam Mars like a native.  This
does not even begin to address some of the more radical claims of NT
advocates like Drexler, who believe that a machine with the full power
of a human brain could be built smaller than a cell.  You could have
the choice of roaming on foot or being part of a community of a billion
in a sapient lichen, all on a single rock.  Or any of other myriad
lifestyles that we would not today recognize as human.  Nanotechnology
would make them all possible, and you could expect some people to adopt
some pretty strange ones.  Californians are an existence proof. ;-)
 
Compared to a few thousand or million bodies, the investment in energy
and *time* to terraform an entire planet to near earth-normal conditions
(which is required for a standard humanoid to live in the open) is
immensely larger.  While terraforming Mars may become someone's hobby,
in a world of nanotechnology you'd expect quite a few people to take
the path of least resistance just to be there first.

I read an SF [novel | short story] a year or two ago that had a group of
colonists struggling to survive on a new planet.  The heavily-resisted
strategy (by the people in charge) turned out to be changing the people, not
the planet.  

I imagine it would be hard to find a whole lot of people who were willing to
take a one-way trip.

I don't think that the trip "back" would pose any problem.
Even without nanotechnology, we are learning now to grow organs
from cultured tissue cells and an appropriate scaffolding; this
has already yielded functional replacement bladders (muscle and
epithelium) for dogs.  Replacing large amounts of the human body
with grown-to-order parts doesn't appear to require nanotech.
When you add the quantum leap in capability of nanotech, it seems
very unlikely that returning to one's original condition could
be as difficult as the original transformation plus the engineering
required to accomplish it.

I find human intelligence in something the size of a cell unlikely.  But 
then, what do I know?  Regardless, I cincerely doubt one can transfer 
someones mind.  You could possibly duplicate someones mind, complete 
with memories, but that would still leave the original intact, and you 
would then have two different (and divergent, especially if they are as 
different in environments as a human and a bacteria) beings with a 
commone set of memories, rather than a transfer of consciousness from 
one to the other.  If you killed the original at the exact instance the 
new one became sapient, you could claim it was continuity, but I would 
still argue it wasn't.

> you killed the original at the exact 
> instance the 
> new one became sapient, you could claim it was 
> continuity, but I would 
> still argue it wasn't.

Interesting example is in Michael Swanwick's short story Ginungagap
(maybe misspelled, sorry, that's from memory). 

Hello. 
Would it be possible to clarify what you mean by "nano-technology" in
this context ? (i.e. give a definition, small transistors are also
nano-technology, so are micro motors).  

I agree with #11

All ideas are feasible given enough time. Now if you consider why we are
trying to colonise mars (or the moon or one of Jupiter's moons),
disregarding the romantic answer "because it's there" we come down to
population pressure - how to get enough resources and living space,
quick and cheap for the present population. 

So we would most probably be setting up a mars colony because we need
the space and raw materials to maintain the current lifestyle of a
population. Now changing the lifeform of a consciousness does not sound
like keeping its lifestyle same, does it ?

Also, talking of feasibility, rewiring the intricracies of a human being
into another life form will be - via any technology - much more
difficult than a) climate engineering b) simply building pressure domes
on the surface.


 

Hi everyone. About nonotechnology... Wel when it comes to any type of "brand
new" technology tehre is always a siginificanr group of people who always have
some "realistic" arguments against it.These people can not accept the simple
idea thet the manking is evoluting all the time and nothing can't stop
evolution. When it comes to nanotechnology - this is a way for fast progress.
Imagine nanoitechnological organisms floating in our blood and changing the
DNA of all the cells in a way that will provide uf with 200 years life, no
cancer, etc. People must not be afraid that they will loose there
"originality" for this originality is only a phase of mankind's evolution.
And mankind must evolute for otherwise it will extinkt of bore :). No,
serious.  Using new technologies to change our bodies is a good thing that
will allow us to explore if not the unevers then our own solare system.
Imagine a man on mars that does,t need anykind of life supporting systems.
If not more, this will at least solve the proble of too-much people on the
earth :).

It sounds to me like it would aggravate the over-population problem,
unless birth control became more widely practiced.

By definition, "nothing can stop evolution", but evolution can have
difference consequences, depending on what we choose to do to direct
evolution. 

#16 sort of reminds me of some early visions of nuclear technology -
electricity too cheap to meter, cancer cured, etc.  Limitations of the
technology, stupid human screw-ups that got people hurt and killed, 
potential malicious misuse, etc. came along pretty quick once the 
technology got out into the real world.

Hi,
I am a newbie so please feel free to correct me and even ban me if you like,
but this whole conversation is quit differnt to what "NANO-TECH" mean in my
understanding. Why dont we just discuss the newest approach and gives ideas
of what it WILL become. A way of making acilinder of merely 60 carbons has
been found and a plan of making amicro motor has been made.

Ban you?  Considering that the last activity in this item was about 16
months ago, I think people would give you a medal instead.

I haven't been following the stuff going on with nanotechnology per se;
I've been watching the things that are related more to carbon chemistry
(Buckytubes etc.) and fun with self-assembling structures.  I saw something
about semi-conducting DNA the other day, which holds out the possibility
of transistors which are literally one molecule wide.  The problem for me
is that the field moves too fast to keep track of it.

Another newbie here. Can't understand why this item died out. while i know
that nanotechnology will bring its own host of problems, it's capable of
solving most of the problems we already have. I think we should put a lot more
effort into making it happen. maybe consolidating our efforts and not worrying
about who gets there first and all that.  
and as far as mars is concerned, that's a pretty paltry goal when you think
about stuff like cancer and aids and people dying from hunger. who cares about
living on another planet when there are some poeple who can't manage it on
this one. and don't even consider the "earth's aleady too crowded" argument,
that's complete B.S. The next time you're at home, consider how many people
could fit comfortably into your house. and that's only one building.
This might not seem relevant to space travel, but think about it: if you get
rid of all the major problems we have, then a lot more resources will be
available for science. and people will be  more open to new technologies and
ideas.

While I doubt that nanotech is "capable of solving most of the problems we
already have" (which are mostly people problems), I have no doubt that it
will lead to marvelous devices. 

But I do not see why we need more people on earth - I think that is, in
fact, our most important problem, which is concerned with the consumption
of resources and the pollution of the earth. The idea that we can cram
more people into our homes is simply irrelevant - first, what kind of life
will that be? Then, it isn't just square footage that is the problem: it
will be food and water and sewage and polluting effluents.  Every
additional person is a *burden* on the ecosphere and our individual
livability. That we are already causing dangerous impacts on resources and
our environment is a good reason for starting to take steps to reduce
population, increase conservation of resources, and reduce waste
generation. 

Besides more marginally needful gadgets, what will be the benefits of
nanotechnology? The major one I can think of is medical instrumentation.
What else might be as useful?

The sorts of advanced nanotechnology which its advocates starts waxing
lyrical about at times would be great for warfare, terrorism, and all
sorts of related things.

(Trying to kick-start the conference?)

That *is* a problem, isn't it?

Someone once told me "If we're lucky, we'll get nanotechnology in
fifty years.  If we're unlucky, we'll get it in ten."  That was
around 1980; I think we're still relatively lucky.  We're going
to have time to develop our understanding of defenses and immune
systems, perhaps soon enough to limit the damage of the inevitable
mistakes and obvious malicious acts.  Before then the technology
will probably be good enough for cheap space travel, and humanity
may well have offshoots beyond the reach of terror weapons.  That
event would make it pointless to set one off; the likelihood goes
way down when you've only got accidents to deal with, not intent.

If not, well... Once, long ago, an invention got loose and it
crapped up the entire world with a corrosive, toxic substance.
It had a very deleterous effect on all life, but we've come to
handle it rather well.  What would we do without oxygen, anyway?

Besides, almost every invention or idea can be used for warfare,
terrorism, and all sorts of related things.  This is not a reason, in my
opinion, to stop having ideas or inventions.  Look how much horror has
resulted from the invention of the nuclear bomb.  It was used twice, and
that's it.  Granted, those two uses were pretty bad, but it has not
resulted in the end if the world, and it can be argued that it has
resulted in less war than otherwise.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss