🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jan.4.22.34.53.1993.8115@planchet.rutgers.edu> willdye@helios.unl.edu (Will Dye) writes:

   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?

(I invited Donaldson to respond to this, but he hasn't yet, and I'm
assuming he won't.)

Capital-N Nanotechnology differs from nanotechnology in that it
assumes that Drexler's ideas (nanomachines with rigid moving parts)
are the only way to get the job done.  Donaldson noticed this when he
was discussing nanotechnology with somebody who believed that we'd
eventually have microscopic artificial submarines swimming around in
our blood killing diseases when artificial antibodies would get the
job done much more simply.  I don't remember how the Cap-N Nanotech
enthusiast responded to Donaldson's claim that the submarines were too
complex.

I agree with Donaldson (and Drexler) that Drexler's schemes are
probably not what is going to happen.  However, many people seem to
not take Drexler's ideas seriously as a lower bound to what will
happen, which is a mistake, in my opinion.  

--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.