• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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

« The President Must Lead | Main | A Necessary Absurdity »

September 07, 2007


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

Patrick Lin

Good discussion, Mike -- I would generally agree with your response and analysis. I had submitted to Adam a more detailed reply to his article, a version of which should be published in the next issue of The New Atlantis soon...so stay tuned!

P.S. Best of luck with your conference this coming week. I'm sorry I'm not able to make it this year -- your speaker line-up looks great.


Mike, you asked whether Adam's critique based on the uncertainty of future nanotechnology applied to CRN. I am afraid I have to say that it very much does.

CRN has been hampered IMO from the beginning by a strong allegiance to the Drexlerian view of nanotech, a framework which has been regarded with extreme skepticism by most mainstream nanotech researchers. In fact CRN seems to be not so much a nano-ethics organization as an advocate for the Drexlerian view. By commiting yourself firmly to this small subset of possible future scenarios you have been somewhat marginalized and are very much subject to Adam's criticism regarding factual uncertainty.

Have you ever made a real attempt to consider what would constitute "responsible" nanotech in a future where Drexler's designs can never be made to work? Shouldn't that be part of your mandate? You guys seem a lot happier designing machines that look like they belong in the next version of Nanosystems than considering nanoparticle toxicity and other more mainstream concerns.

The comments to this entry are closed.