Re: Attotechnology

Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 13:47:27 MST

In a message dated 12/3/2001 2:23:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

<< Real attotech I think would involve engineering things like
 positronium, muononium, perhaps advanced nucleus engineering
 (new isotopes?). But I don't think you are going to see
 real "technologies" on that scale soon because I don't think
 we have a clue as to how to actually construct sub-atomic sized
 structures that actually last any length of time.
 Robert >>

I suspect that we'd all be astounded, if attotech was possible, in a
massively meaningful manner, in the next 200 years. It seems to be the stuff
that godz are made of, or the stuff superbeings would make, hence my previous
post, quibbling about attotech, and D. Broderick's use of the term. On the
other hand, mature nanotech, as visioned by Drexler, is wonderous in itself,
whether biologically driven, or inorganically constituted.

For all of us old enough to have seen predictions and forecasts, fall short
of accuracy; caution is a watch-word, only because the Weekly Reader, Popular
Mechanics worldview, takes decades decade(s) longer to realize, then the
original prophesies proclaim. Building tomorrow is hard work, and frequently,
too expensive to justify themselves in cost-benefit analysis reports.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT