Comments on: Studying Nanotechnology: A Preface http://metamodern.com/2009/02/18/studying-nanotechnology-prefac/ The Trajectory of Technology Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:29:39 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Chris Phoenix http://metamodern.com/2009/02/18/studying-nanotechnology-prefac/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Chris Phoenix Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:32:02 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=1832#comment-535 Argh, we can't even do graphs right. Those should be bar charts, not curves. The scientific backlash may have peaked around 1998, but I'd say the political backlash got a lot worse in 2001. Ralph Merkle was still getting papers published in mainstream nanotech journals in the second half of the 90's. 2001 was when Bill Joy published "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" in Wired, just after the NNI was funded. Suddenly, everyone receiving nanotech funding found it necessary to say that molecular manufacturing was impossible. And Bill Joy's assertion - that one laboratory "oops" could destroy the world - wasn't a distortion of your technical ideas, but an amplification of a hypothetical usage scenario which you'd spent about three paragraphs on in 1986 and then made thoroughly obsolete in 1992. Even if the technical distortions hadn't happened, I'm not sure the political problems in the early 2000's would have been alleviated much. Money talks. Chris Argh, we can’t even do graphs right. Those should be bar charts, not curves.

The scientific backlash may have peaked around 1998, but I’d say the political backlash got a lot worse in 2001. Ralph Merkle was still getting papers published in mainstream nanotech journals in the second half of the 90′s.

2001 was when Bill Joy published “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us” in Wired, just after the NNI was funded. Suddenly, everyone receiving nanotech funding found it necessary to say that molecular manufacturing was impossible.

And Bill Joy’s assertion – that one laboratory “oops” could destroy the world – wasn’t a distortion of your technical ideas, but an amplification of a hypothetical usage scenario which you’d spent about three paragraphs on in 1986 and then made thoroughly obsolete in 1992.

Even if the technical distortions hadn’t happened, I’m not sure the political problems in the early 2000′s would have been alleviated much. Money talks.

Chris

]]>