Zero Powers wrote:
> I don't know, this may be old news around here, but I stumbled upon the
> actual text of Clinton's National Nanotechnology Initiative...
I read it. Items that disturb me:
A) How does *anyone* manage to write a 101-page paper on nanotechnology
without using the words "Drexler", "Merkle", or "Foresight"? Is there
some deliberate conspiracy to shut Foresight out? Does anyone on the
commission know they exist? Are these guys (1) being controlled by
Foresight from behind the scenes, (2) good friends of Foresight who
aren't mentioning Drexler so as to avoid triggering the bogosity meters
of fools, (3) honestly so uninformed that they haven't read
_Nanosystems_, or (4) blood enemies of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing?
B) China has a $100M nanotechnology program? Gulp. I hope it's wimpy
nanolithography and not drextech. Actually, the paper lists a *lot* of
countries and institutions, but it's impossible to tell who's working on
positional-control molecular assembly and who's working on leetle tiny
transistors. (From other sources, I get the impression that Japan might
be truly clued. Heck, even their anime is pretty clued. Look to the
Japanese to be the first culture to emotionally accept the upheavals
ahead.) I am very interested in knowing how much China knows, seeing as
how the Orient looks to be the bogeyman of this century.
C) Much ado about spy/infotech aspects of nanotech and "national
security". One brief mention of advanced-material fighter jets.
Nothing about about nanoweapons or active shields. No quotes from
These people are deliberately avoiding all mention of diamondoid and
drextech. I'm not sure whether they're good guys or bad guys, but I
don't trust them.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/beyond.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:17 MDT