> "Mark Phillips" <clay8@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, Craig, you may be right. Hopefully, though, we extropians,
> > venturists, and especially Drexler and his group and (BC)Crandall and his
> > group, may be able to keep nanotech RESEARCH, and, thus, the BREAKTHROUGH,
> > in the public/commercial sector of the society. If not, we may all be
> > (nano-)screwed!!
>
> What was the BREAKTHROUGH of computers? What was the BREAKTHROUGH of
> chemical synthesis? What was the BREAKTHROUGH of modern medicine?
>
> Technological development is a broad front, not a race for a single
> breakthrough. The exception may be when trying to use a completely new
> physical principle, but nanotech is well within the spheres of
> chemistry, physics and biology.
In this particular case, the "breaktrough" we should watch out for may be the first viable black (war) goo. This *is* likely to be developed in a "secret" government lab, and may be ready before appropriate defenses become widely available. Another such breaktrough could be "massive intelligence increase", artificial or human. Though the rough outlines of the technology might be known to many, only a relative handful of people will initially have the *tangible results*, which, if used wisely, may give them a decisive edge.