Earlier, "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> >
> > At 02:36 PM 27/08/00 -0700, Gina wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.nano.gov/
> >
> > So frustrating to find that the names Drexler, Merkle and Freitas are
> > nowhere to be found in this 144 page document.
>
> Guess the whole theory of "Be public and open, so that you have some
> influence in how things go" turned out to be a load of horse hockey.
Folks, I've been as frustrated by certain of the science media's
pseudoanalysis of nanotech theory as anyone. At the same time however,
without sugar-coating any erroneous anti-nanotech arguments, it's worth
noting that some of the opposition to Drexler was probably pretty honest
in intent originally, even when mistaken. For instance, _Nano_, Ed
Regis' book on the subject, is seemingly quite accurate in depicting
the heady atmosphere generated by Drexler's ideas back in the 1980's.
Generally, it would be rare for scientists such as Drexler and company
to see themselves as in charge of quite such an earth-shaking
revolution -- and of course this was going to generate some kind of
determinedly "rare" sorts of opposing views. Even relatively recently,
such a far-out scientific visionary as Freeman Dyson can say that he is
in some way "skeptical" of Drexler. So if Mr. "Astro-Chickens will
explore the solar system" Dyson can express general skepticism, we can
only imagine what what the regular, staid, back-of-the-laboratory
science worker must think!
Anyway, as far as the United States NNI program outline document is
concerned, it is not so surprising that the initiators of the key ideas
would not be mentioned in the document. Historical analogy: if extremely
high-level government committees had been in charge of checking
Einstein's theories, would the directives have even mentioned Einstein,
or just some of the people who might be sent on eclipse viewing
expeditions? More to the point, if someone started handing out lifetime
acheivement awards, and they ostentatiously missed Drexler, that *would*
be something remiss -- but beaurocratic program outlines aren't really
about that, right?
Say, *here* is a nice media report on nanotech, in RealAudio format,
from the Dec 11, 1999 edition of the Canadian weekly science show
"Quirks and Quarks". It's at
http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives.htm. If I recall right,
the report is near the beginning of this 50 minute long science program,
so you should be able to click right on it and hear the nanotech
comments of Richard Smalley and Nadrian Seeman right away -- though
Drexler wasn't in this report, and neither, I think, were Merkle nor
Freitas, "sigh" :^) .
David Blenkinsop <blenl@sk.sympatico.ca>
"Astrochicken will not be built, it will be grown . . . its blueprints
will be written in the convenient digital language of DNA . . . to
receive instructions from earth and transmit back the results . . ."
-- from _Infinite in All Directions_, by Freeman Dyson, 1988
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:43 MDT