• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Who ya gonna call? | Main | The Future Needs Us »

January 23, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8a69e200d83458e61c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Planning Ahead:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Janessa Ravenwood

That tentative outline includes none of the specifics I mentioned. Keep working.

Robin Green

I believe it is almost certain that such restrictions would be involved if the technology was pionneered in the US, no matter how loudly libertarians complain. For the simple reason that it would be literally essential for national security. For someone who has worked at a military base, Janessa, you show a surprising lack of political and military realism.

So I don't believe we have to be too worried about nanarchy if the US "gets there first". The work of CRN is, I believe, important in two respects: providing credible policy proposals to serve as framing the debate, and highlighting the enormous strategic imperative for (one of, or an alliance of) the relatively democratic nations to Get There First with a nanofactory.

These restrictions won't buy us forever, but they will buy us a significant amount of time to research defensive nanotechnology - and reengineering humanity to be more resilient.

Mike Treder, CRN

"The work of CRN is, I believe, important in two respects: providing credible policy proposals to serve as framing the debate, and highlighting the enormous strategic imperative for (one of, or an alliance of) the relatively democratic nations to Get There First with a nanofactory."

Indeed. Well said, Robin.

Janessa Ravenwood

I believe it is almost certain that such restrictions would be involved if the technology was pioneered in the US, no matter how loudly libertarians complain. For the simple reason that it would be literally essential for national security. For someone who has worked at a military base, Janessa, you show a surprising lack of political and military realism.
-----
I didn’t say that the U.S. would not impose regulation. I just don’t think that the U.S. regulation will be as ultra-Big-Brother as CRN wants, however. And I expect there to be a thriving nanotech underground in fairly short order.

The comments to this entry are closed.