Then, on Saturday, September 28, 1996 5:01PM Dr. Rich Artym asked:
"I wonder though, is there anyone else on the list besides Lyle that
doesn't believe that MNT will achieve the bulk of the things that are
being predicted for it? It would be good to know --- it might save us
time and effort in wasted arguments."
I think the majority would agree (or at least like to believe) that
strong nanotech capabilities will _eventually_ be achieved. But I can
recall at least two others besides myself who posted concerns about your
vision of how we can get there from here and what shape it might
ultimately take.
As an engineer, and a software one at that, I would think you'd
recognize the need for calibration and specification that Lyle suggests,
as well as the practicality of incremental development. Too many
'grand-scheme' or 'master-plan' software development efforts have
crashed & burned. *In the case of nanotech, the consequences could be
alot more severe than just some money down the drain.*
IMHO, the scenarios you've suggested would be feasible only for some
stripped-down, 'virtual nanotechnology' simulated in an Artificial
Reality, OR in a world where nanites were already in control of
everything - "an organic/silico blob" / "a teaming, feasting soup" as
some posts on older threads envisioned. That day may come; but, if
you're really "more interested in *making* it happen", you should be
working on a practical transition plan.
Mark Crosby