Flying cars, space travel for everyone, the elimination of poverty and hunger, and powerful new tools to combat disease, and even aging. These are some of the amazing predicted developments of nanotechnology, the coming science of designing and building machines at the molecular and atomic levels. Will this new scientific revolution be for better or worse? Some commentators have described utopias; others have prophesied disaster. Find out the likely reality from an expert, Dr. J. Storrs Hall, in this absorbing insider’s guide to the near future.
That's from the jacket of Nanofuture: What's Next for Nanotechnology, on sale now at Barnes & Noble, Borders, Walmart, Amazon, and better bookstores everywhere.
This may be the book I wish I'd written. I haven't read it yet, but based on the description and the reviews, I can't wait.
"...excellent introduction to nanotechnology...can be enjoyed and appreciated by the interested layman as well as the professional scientist." - Saul Levy, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University"Readers excited by the promises of nanotechnology will find this book a gripping read." - Publishers Weekly
"...the best introduction to our nanotechnological future published in the last 10 years...I loved this book! Buy it!" - Robert A. Freitas Jr., author of Nanomedicine"If you thought the present century will bring less change than the industrial revolution did, think again." - Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
I know Josh (the author), and regard him as one of the best in the world at thinking scientifically, sociologically, philosophically, and creatively all at the same time. He's an amazing guy and we wish him great success with this book.
Mike Treder
"Flying cars, space travel for everyone, the elimination of poverty and hunger, and powerful new tools to combat disease, and even aging. These are some of the amazing predicted developments of nanotechnology, the coming science of designing and building machines at the molecular and atomic levels. Will this new scientific revolution be for better or worse? Some commentators have described utopias; others have prophesied disaster. Find out the likely reality from an expert, Dr. J. Storrs Hall, in this absorbing insider’s guide to the near future."
Isn't this the same thing that everyone in the Fifties expected for the year 2000? Next, please.
Posted by: MysticMonkeyGuru | June 06, 2005 at 05:55 PM
All of this is absolute horse hooey. In the 1950s people thought that we would be living on the moon and downing food pills by now. Stop listening to Kurzweil and kooks like him. Wake up and smell reality.
Posted by: AmericanSkeptic | June 06, 2005 at 05:58 PM
The only way we shall achieve any of these things is to lose the qualities which make us human. Ordinary, unenhanced humans and flying cars would be a recipe for disaster. We're just too damn stupid to eliminate poverty and humger. Let's face it, it's a jungle out there. We fight and fuck like animals. We start wars. So how the HELL can we handle these things in our current state?
Posted by: AmericanSkeptic | June 06, 2005 at 06:04 PM
So, Americanskeptic, are you suggesting that the products of a quickening pace of technological progress won't be developed, or that they will be developed but used in an irresponsible manner?
Posted by: cdnprodigy | June 06, 2005 at 08:51 PM
I'm saying a bit of both, ordinary humans wouldn't know how to handle molecular nanotech without a major catastrophe on their hands, in the unlikely event that MM/MN is developed at all.
Posted by: AmericanSkeptic | June 06, 2005 at 09:17 PM
AS, you seem to feel MM will be more like cold-fusion attempts than A-Bomb in its likelyhood of success. But you still admit that it might be possible. Given its incredibly destabilizing effects if it does occur, does it not make sense to at least try to brainstorm and some effectively safe/altruistic policy ideas in the faint hope the 1st MM effort might actually use them? The further away in time you think MM is, the more tiny efforts today can compound through the future...
Posted by: cdnprodigy | June 07, 2005 at 03:09 AM
Why are we or more people not living on the moon ? The vision of people living on the moon was not achieved. However, this was not limited by a technological problem. There were money, political and planning issues.
If Johnson and Nixon Administrations had made different choices (yet perfectly reasonable and realistic choices), then a permanent lunar base could have been created. Not spending money on the space shuttle but instead on following on skylab with more replacements and then making a long duration lunar base etc...
Interesting futures that are not dependent on only the US or Russian governments and agencies to make the right choices are the current developing situation.
It is well known that several dynamic companies are on the verge of radical changing the models and costs for space access. China has some interesting plans for a space station.
Flying cars had flaws in its concept. Legal liability, zoning, noise and safety issues were not properly addressed. It is a new air traffic system and navigational automation that were the sticking points as well. I have seen Dr. J. Storrs Hall concept which does address those problems. Whether this is the best/winning economic model is still an open issue ? That is if the air taxi system becomes very successful (small affordable jets flying between the 5000 small airports) can that mean that flying cars becomes a smaller and perhaps economically unviable market.
Poverty elimination is beginning to get detailed economic and sociological analysis and more programs that are achieving real successes and efforts with a more realistic possibility of success. The biggest real gains in poverty elimination have been China and India correcting their systems so that these populous countries make broad and lasting economic advances. They have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
So progress around problems and benefits is possible now and more progress can be made in the future, but only by really digging and in and understanding what is being done and what needs to be done to make good things happen or to stop bad things.
The statement of "this sounds like something from X years ago and that did not work out" or "people are inherently bad or animals and we are screwed up now" does not move things forward.
Kurzweil statements carry weight because he has made many signicant inventions and created successful multi-million dollar companies from them. He is contributing to creating the future that he speaks and writes about.
Posted by: Brian Wang | June 07, 2005 at 10:46 AM
"AS, you seem to feel MM will be more like cold-fusion attempts than A-Bomb in its likelyhood of success."
More along the lines of perpetual motion.
Posted by: AmericanSkeptic | June 07, 2005 at 05:44 PM
MM violates the laws of physics?
Posted by: cdnprodigy | June 07, 2005 at 07:16 PM