Difference between revisions of "The various other nanotechnologies"
m |
(→Related: added link to yet unwritten page about the Drexler-Smalley debate) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
What was criticized/attacked where old self-suggesting ideas in "[[Engines of Creation]]" (namely [[molecular assemblers]]) rather than <br> | What was criticized/attacked where old self-suggesting ideas in "[[Engines of Creation]]" (namely [[molecular assemblers]]) rather than <br> | ||
the (by then already published) detailed technical analysis in '''[[Nanosystems]]'''. <br> | the (by then already published) detailed technical analysis in '''[[Nanosystems]]'''. <br> | ||
| − | R. Smalley pretty much certainly did not have a look into [[Nanosystems]] <br> | + | R. Smalley pretty much certainly did not have a look into [[Nanosystems]]: <br> |
* already associating E. Drexler with the vision hypers <small>(The hypers that E. Drexler did not associate with his work)</small> <br> | * already associating E. Drexler with the vision hypers <small>(The hypers that E. Drexler did not associate with his work)</small> <br> | ||
| − | * having limited time and, no motivation | + | * having limited time and, no motivation looking for existence of newer work, and then even spending money and ''time'' on it |
'''Oversimpliefied but memorable the situation could be described as such:''' <br> | '''Oversimpliefied but memorable the situation could be described as such:''' <br> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
And "nano" only refers to size. So it's usage for crude "nanobolders" is perfectly reasonable. | And "nano" only refers to size. So it's usage for crude "nanobolders" is perfectly reasonable. | ||
| − | The new non technical book [[Radical | + | The new non technical book "[[Radical Abundance]]" aims to clear up how all these events unfolded. <br> |
See: [[Books]] | See: [[Books]] | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
* [[Analogies and their dangers]] | * [[Analogies and their dangers]] | ||
* [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]] | * [[Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing]] | ||
| + | * [[Drexler-Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology]] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
* [[History]] | * [[History]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:49, 11 September 2021
There are at least five types of nanotechnology (see link to article in external links section).
The "war" about the meaning of "nano"
Over the course of the last decades the terms
"nano", "nanotech", and "nanotechnoloy" have become a problematic.
"Nano..." came/comes with:
- association with increased chanced of funding when used in a works title
- strong recognition by the the public given its a "buzz word"
Researchers don't want to loose their funding.
Consequently there are fears of the word "nano" becoming a dirty word (like "gene" has become in some contexts)
- The "nano hype" has started to a good part for the public getting excited over early visionary far term prospects. See: Engines of Creation
- Researchers wanted the public attention for these visionary far term prospects – that they mostly NOT worked towards to – group subconscious terminology annexation
- Researchers did not want the public attention for the visionary far term horrors that sneakily came packaged with the visions. See: Grey goo horror fable
When the bad associations became increasingly clear some motivation for scientists amassed to discredit the horror visions (even if it might dampen the positive hype).
So a certain someone traced back the visions to the origins (Engines of Creation) and
What followed was the infamous Drexler–Smalley debate
That discussion turned (most likely unintentional) into a pointless (but still descrediting) straw-man attack.
What was criticized/attacked where old self-suggesting ideas in "Engines of Creation" (namely molecular assemblers) rather than
the (by then already published) detailed technical analysis in Nanosystems.
R. Smalley pretty much certainly did not have a look into Nanosystems:
- already associating E. Drexler with the vision hypers (The hypers that E. Drexler did not associate with his work)
- having limited time and, no motivation looking for existence of newer work, and then even spending money and time on it
Oversimpliefied but memorable the situation could be described as such:
Oops, what we've stolen has a nasty side, so let's get some revenge on the one we have stolen it from.
Kinda like a thief attaching the victim later because the stolen goods contained more than they (never have) bargained for.
Of course this is over-exxagerating. No one did consciously steal (annex) the term "nano".
And "nano" only refers to size. So it's usage for crude "nanobolders" is perfectly reasonable.
The new non technical book "Radical Abundance" aims to clear up how all these events unfolded.
See: Books
Anyways:
Generally the advise here would be to avoid "nano" as much as possible.
Be more specific instead.
External links
See: (2014-05-04) The five kinds of nanotechnology
on Erik K. Drexlers metamodern blog (internetarchive)
Related
- APM related terms
- Biological analogies
- Analogies and their dangers
- Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing
- Drexler-Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology
