Re: Submolecular nanotech

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: jonwill

jonwill <jonwill@erols.com> writes:

> Gina Miller wrote:
>
> > Moving down to the subatomic
> > level, may or may not be the next step. Top down or to bottoms up, should we
> > skip? Why not keep delving into all aspects?
>
> Agreed. Since the future is an unknown quantity, one can currently only
> speculate as to which technologies will provide the desired human capabilities
> for the best life for all. Subsequently, all potential beneficial methodologies
> should be explored. The ability to take the base materials from a group of any
> type of atom, and rearrange the same to form any other type of atoms is
> something that should be pursued.

But how much? Antigravity would be very beneficial, but there are obviously a lot of very hard work needed to be done to get it practical - if it is possible at all, which we do not know. How much should we pursue it compared to (say) cryonics or a better search engine?

In the end, it is a question of how much we chose to invest in what - put everything on a safe bet, distribute it among likely candidate technologies, take a chance and invest in far-off stuff? The most extropian solution would of course be a self-organized, flexible method that encourages rational estimates; idea futures is one such idea (just read the online excerpts of EarthWeb, some nice portrayal there of how it might work), plain investment another. Some people believe strongly in certain technologies and would invest in them, others play it safe.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se                            http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: jonwill