Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu> Wrote:
> It seems your "Nanotechnology" is much better than my "nanotech".
I'm big N and I'm proud. I mean if, "God" deserves to be capitalized then
certainly "Nanotechnology" does too.
>Your "Nanotechnology" can make just about everything so cheap you
>wouldn't think to just make another one if you ever saw any flaw in something.
Yep, that's what I mean by the term.
>And it can do this right next to anyone anytime.
Obviously. Nanomachines are small and portable and cheap, so if it can do
something someplace then it do it everyplace.
>my poor nanotech is just atomic-precision factories, which you'd have to figure
>out how to use to do other useful stuff.
That's not clear, if stretched a little you could almost say we have nanotech
(small n) right now, so it's not a useful word. If a nanomachine can make
another nanomachine then the world will never be the same, if it can't then
the technology has little power, nothing fundamentally new has happened
and it's business as usual for the world. Something that mundane doesn't
deserve a word of its own, certainly not Nanotechnology (big N). But perhaps
I misunderstand you, just what were you planing to make in your "atomic-precision
factories"?
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:27 MDT