Responsible Nanotechnology

Potential for Nano Warfare

By now hopefully you have had time to read and digest all eight of the nanotechnology scenarios recently published by CRN.

One of the most interesting surprises uncovered in our months-long group project of crafting and refining those stories was that nano-based warfare did not automatically come to the fore as a leading topic. We talked about it a lot, but through the process of prioritizing, clarifying, and honing our narratives, the expectation that nations would embark on a nanotech arms race that would lead to war -- well, that story never materialized.

Why should that be? Is it because the prospect of a war fueled by super-powerful, exponentially produced weapons is just too uncomfortable for people to consider? Or are there logical reasons that make the nano arms race and warfare scenario unlikely in the real world?

I could venture a few ideas of my own now, but instead I think I'll leave this out here for you to ponder.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

After empire, then what?

On his excellent blog, The Futurist, Stephen Aguilar-Millan writes:

Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that America has an Empire. There are many who deny this, but let us just leave that objection aside for the moment. Let us also suppose that the American Empire (which we have just assumed to be) is in long term decline. Once again, there are those who argue that the current malaise experienced by the US is temporary, and that we should expect a resurgence of America over the next decade or so. By assumption, we have an American Empire in decline. If so, then the interesting question is whether or not that Empire is due to collapse.

Progress is Precarious

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wise-Nano Wiki Upgrade

Many of you probably are familiar with the Wise-Nano wiki site started by CRN a few years ago. I'm happy to report that we have just successfully completed an upgrade to the MediaWiki software, using the expert assistance of Nato Welch, CRN's Tech Support Specialist.

Nato says:

Our wiki at http://wise-nano.org/ has recently been updated to Mediawiki 1.11, the current stable release. Due to some minor problems with spambots, we have instituted a new policy requiring all wiki users to confirm by email before being allowed to edit or create pages. If you have an existing account on the wiki, you can confirm your email in your user preferences.

We invite everyone to take a look at the material collected by the community there, and consider making your own contributions. That could be done by improving, editing, discussing, or expanding on existing material, or contributing one or more articles of your own that are relevant to development of molecular manufacturing.

Among the "hot debates" you'll find at the Wise-Nano site are these:

Slope of technology curve: Will exponential production arrive as a sudden leap in technology or will it fit in the incremental growth curve of progress?

Should people be required to die at some point, as nanotechnology extends health to 100, 120, even 200 years?

Is there a secret U.S. molecular manufacturing project, or is the U.S. government clueless?

Does molecular manufacturing need breakthroughs, or just lots of R&D?

Will global administration be necessary? Or is that intolerable?

Early MM pros and cons: Is it wiser to develop molecular manufacturing ASAP, or delay it?

We hope you'll enjoy reading -- and better yet becoming an active participant -- in these important discussions.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Vertical Cities

A fascinating two-part article from TechNewsWorld assesses future "super-cities and hyperstructures under consideration today." The second half of the series focuses on proposed vertical cities, and asks the question:

Just how big can these structures get?

Theoretically, there appears to be no limit.

Take, for example, the proposed "vertical city" called "The Bionic Tower," a massive building designed for human habitation by Spanish architects Eloy Celaya and Cervera & Pioz for about $15 billion. It would have a main tower nearly 3,940 feet high, with 300 stories that would house about 100,000 people. Both Shanghai, China, and Hong Kong have reportedly expressed interest in the concept.

Then there is the Sky City 1000 concept consisting of a building about 3,280 feet tall and 1,312 feet wide at the base, with a total floor area of 1976.8 acres. Proposed in 1989 by Takenaka, the design provides for 35,000 full-time residents and 100,000 workers in 14 concave dish-shaped "Space Plateaus" stacked one upon the other, containing residences, offices, commercial facilities, schools, theaters and other modern amenities. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government and some of Japan's largest corporations are reportedly seeking to build this behemoth within a decade.

The X-Seed 4000 is the tallest building contemplated to date. Its proposed 13,123-foot height, 19,685-foot wide sea-base, and 800 floor capacity could purportedly accommodate as many as one million inhabitants. Designed for Tokyo by the Taisei in 1995, the Mount Fuji-shaped structure would actively protect its occupants from considerable air pressure gradations and weather fluctuations along its massive elevation and use solar power to maintain internal environmental conditions.

In comparison, the real Mount Fuji is 12,467-feet high, nearly 700 feet shorter than X-Seed 4000. The projected cost to build the structure is estimated between $300 billion and $900 billion.

Of course, it's obvious that building such monstrosities, even if they are deemed worthwhile, may only become feasible with the introduction of molecular manufacturing. The TechNewsWorld article hints at this, saying:

Housing and office space would be provided by 30-story-high skyscrapers suspended from above and below, and attached to the pyramid's supporting structure with nanotube cables.

Now there's a bug that will take some work: nanotechnology.

The external structure of the Mega-City Pyramid would be an open network of mega-trusses supporting struts made from carbon nanotubes to allow the pyramid to stand against high winds, earthquakes and tsunamis.

In fact, the entire design relies on the future availability of super-strong lightweight materials based on carbon nanotubes. While we do have that technology, we have yet to perfect the means to manufacture carbon nanotube materials on a mass scale. That may prove a bit troublesome for the moment.

For the moment, yes. But once we enter the era of general-purpose nanofactories, such "sky-high" concepts do become practical to consider building. Then it's just a matter of deciding whether or not we want to build them.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Enabling Nanotech Update

Enabling nanotechnologies are those that may represent significant steps toward the eventual realization of exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing.

These kinds of technologies are not yet molecular manufacturing, in the classic sense, and in fact their developers may not be actively working in that direction. However, progress made by these technologies can bear watching, because they may enable, or make easier, the development of significant portions of molecular manufacturing's full range of needed technical capabilities.

Here are a couple of good examples...

US Basic Science in Decline

Eric Berger's SciGuy blog tells us that this is...

A dark time for "big" physics in America

U.S. physicists have had a couple of weeks to digest the finalized version of the 2008 federal budget, and they're not finding it any more to their liking than before. Among the last-minute cuts:

• Cuts $88 million from high-energy physics program, primarily particle accelerators.
• Entirely nixes the 2008 U.S. contribution, $149 million, to ITER, the international fusion project.
• Cuts cuts funding for development on the proposed International Linear Collider from $60 million to $15 million.

Over at the blog For Entrepreneurs, we read about more big cuts in science research funding:

In Illinois, we have two great National Labs: Argonne and Fermilab.

Both of these Illinois National Labs have had their budgets slashed to the point where there are massive layoffs underway and many important scientific research projects have been cancelled or put on hold.

These are not "cut the fat" changes. Rather, these are "cut out the essential organs" cuts. They put a big part of our national scientific research efforts on life support and jeopardize our national competitiveness.

Indeed, the Fermilab Today site reports that:

The diminished funds will have a powerful impact at Fermilab, requiring workforce adjustments and forcing the cancellation of R&D for experiments and technology key to the future of particle physics.

And there is more bad news from the pages of American Medical News:

For the fifth consecutive year, the National Institutes of Health budget will fail to keep pace with growth in the cost of conducting biomedical research. . .

There aren't many positives for scientific research in the 2008 budget, said David Moore, senior associate vice president for government relations for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

"What we're going to see is less research, a slowing down of certain research programs," he said. "It's a slowing of medical progress."

Why is all this important? Does it really matter to the rest of the world if science funding in the United States is flat or declining? I think it does matter, partly because the U.S. economy and federal budgets are by far the largest in the world -- meaning they have the ability to support more basic science research than anyone else -- but also because so much important policy toward science and technology emanates from the United States.

If the U.S. government is unwilling to provide adequate funding for basic science, that sends a message to business, government, and research institutions worldwide: that science is less important than other priorities (such as making war and making profits), and that the benefits of basic research are not worth supporting, even if it means that future generations -- not to mention our own generation -- will suffer as a result.

It is disgraceful.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

More Changed Minds

I changed my own mind!

On Saturday, I offered a short sampling of some of the 165 answers to the Edge annual question, "What have you changed your mind about?"

I said then, and thought, that presenting a few of the ideas previously mined by Alex Steffen would be sufficient. But now I've decided to add to that with excerpts from several more of the many interesting responses to the question. So, here we go...

To Change is to Mature

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.

— Henri Bergson

Changed Minds

What have you changed your mind about?

As you may already have heard, that is this year's big question at Edge.

I've spent some time reviewing many of what I thought were the more interesting or provocative answers. And I was planning to post a summary here.

But then I discovered that our friend Alex Steffen at Worldchanging had already done the work. So, instead of reinventing the wheel, I'll just plagiarize -- er, borrow from him.