🚀 go-pugleaf

dkrieger@netcom.com (David Krieger) writes:
>...There
>are plenty of people who could do a lot more harm than Leary by embracing
>what Thomas Donaldson calls "capital-N Nanotechnology".  

I've read some postings by Mr. Donaldson (and was impressed by them), 
but I haven't run across the phrase "capital-N Nanotechnology".  
How is this differ from, say, "n"anotechnology?

>...For example, Pat
>Robertson (televangelist) has mentioned "Engines" on his "700 Club" 
>television program.

What did he have to say about it?  I'm curious about the political 
demographics of the nanotech meme.  Most nano proponents seem to 
be near the techno-libertairian point of view.  Conservatives, 
however, have a small faction called the "conservative opportunity 
society", that seems happy with technological progress.  I wonder 
what the Rev. Robertson had to say. 

My interest concerns lobbying for long-term support of research in
general, and nanotech in particular.  It's almost always a mistake 
(from the view of political strategy) for an interest group to become
tied to one party.  The party you're tied to can take you for granted, 
so you get nice words, and maybe some handouts in the primaries, but 
in the general election they fight over the uncommitted or weakly 
committed.  The other party won't bother to please you, since they 
figure you can't be won.  Witness the strategies of the major 
lobbying groups (Oil, Tobacco, Israel, Military Spending, etc.), 
they may be closer to one party than the other, but they never want 
to be seen as permanently locked in.  There are other benefits, such
as getting exposure to a greater diversity of ideas, an organizational
culture that knows how to avoid alienating those with different points
of view, and a bit less vulnerability to becoming a pork-barrel 
project.

Currently, there are enormous opportunities for the nanotech meme 
in the Clinton administration.  I believe we should pursue them 
vigorously.  We should avoid, however, the sweet temptation of  
becoming a project of the Democratic Party.  Like any political 
group, they will want to take credit for benefits that may arise 
from projects that have supported.  We have to be careful to not 
let our desire to please our patron get in the way of our long-term
strategy.  After all, this is a long-term project, and we (like 
other major groups) need long-term, consistent support. 

I'm sorry for digressing here on politics, JoSH.  I'm trying to read 
Nanosystems and contribute to the technical side; but for now, politics 
is something I know, so I tend to talk about it.  I'll keep reading.

--Will
willdye@helios.unl.edu