On the particular topic you raise, the key point is that scalable atomically precise manufacturing has requirements much like those of more conventional automated manufacturing. Making products and building new production equipment requires machines, but factories don’t use machines that can build copies of themselves. This would be difficult and pointless, because specialized machines are so much simpler and more efficient. See my posts on how automated manufacturing works — without even ordinary factory-style robots, and for good reason:

High-Throughput Nanomanufacturing: Small Parts
High-Throughput Nanomanufacturing: Assembly
High-Throughput Nanomanufacturing: Assembling larger products

James 08.07.09 at 11:07 pm UTC
Eric, did you see the GI Joe movie? It features ‘grey goo’ they refer to as ‘nanomites.’ Made me think of you when I was watching it. :)

Eric Drexler 08.08.09 at 2:59 pm UTC
@ James — This mythology is one of several reasons why I’ve never liked “nanobots”.

James 08.08.09 at 9:53 pm UTC
I’ve always wondered about your stance on ‘nanobots’ – you seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that productive nanosystems will resemble manufacturing plants, not self-replicating robots. This is because self-replicating robots are hard, correct? But how are you going to build an entire manufacturing plant on a macroscale of product nanosystems without some form of self-replication? And eventually, you will need ‘nanobots’ for things like human body repair, and fight off hostile nanobots in the environment, and so on. These are all things from EoC, but now it seems your stance has changed but these problems will still exist. Whether we like ‘nanobots’ or not, we are going to need DNA repair and nano-policebots, and some way to make huge numbers of macro-scale productive nanosystems. Do you think that macro-scale productive nanosystems can be mass produced without self-replication? What about hostile nano-agents, and other things we need defense from.
I read EoC, and I believe you were correct with what you wrote then, I don’t see it as a mistake as you seem to see it now. (sorry this rambles off topic, is there a better forum for this discussion?)

I’d like to see discussion focus on what physics, engineering analysis, and experimental results tell us about both longer-term objectives and next steps on pathways toward increasingly capable atomically precise fabrication. Chatter that revolves around vague words is useless, or worse — especially when the words have come to denote absurd ideas. These words and ideas won’t go away, but they can be recognized for what they are.

First, one of their attractions is that both enable the general public to think of the technology as a finite object. Sort of like how “factory” is something the public can visualize and not “assembly-line manufacturing”.

Second, what would you call the nanoscale devises that many talk about with the arrival of mature nanotechnology? For example, the anti-cancer nanoscale devises that float through the blood stream hunting down cancer cells. What would you name those? Or are you saying those will never come to pass?