Critics of Nanotechnology

[Ocean Seal]

I've been trying to find this, but I'm not sure why many singulitarians are so opposed to nanotechnology. I don't really understand the dangers of it, especially considering the stage in which its in right now. And it has the possibility to end many of humanities problems. Also I don't understand why seed AI should replace it, being that the roles of both of them don't coincide. This isn't meant as a criticism of singulitarians, but I'm just looking for some of their reasons to oppose nano-technology.

[NGNM85]

I've been trying to find this, but I'm not sure why many singulitarians are so opposed to nanotechnology. I don't really understand the dangers of it, especially considering the stage in which its in right now. And it has the possibility to end many of humanities problems. Also I don't understand why seed AI should replace it, being that the roles of both of them don't coincide. This isn't meant as a criticism of singulitarians, but I'm just looking for some of their reasons to oppose nano-technology.

Most proponants of the Singularity I've met or read about actually embrace nanotechnolgy, with the exception of Bill Joy. Those that don't are probably concerned about some variant of the 'Grey Goo Scenario';
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo

[Hoplite]

NGN hit it pretty much head on.

Grey Goo is a big concern for many people however I personally dont think it's a large concern and certainly for the potential gain that advanced nanotechnology could bring us, the risk is worth it.

I think people have seen the idea in entertainment and they have an unrealistic view of nanotechnology.

As someone who believes that advanced technologies, such as nanotechnology, will give us a fertile ground for a Socialist country, I think we need to be rational about our concerns and not let Hollywood dictate how we feel.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Grey goo is a load of horseshit.

As Eric Drexler (the author of "Engines of Creation", the man who coined the term "grey goo") himself stated years after writing about grey goo - self replicating nanobots are impractical; building "nanofactories" that produce non-replicating robots makes more sense.

It's simply easier (and cheaper) to build nano-factories then a replicating nanobot.

I don't think anybody who has a real idea what they're on about has a worry about a grey goo scenario. Even a wikipedia-research session exposes the impracticalities of such event happening.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The only real ecophagy are these private corporations. So why are they more worried about nanotechnology than they are of these private corporations?

[Widerstand]

The only real ecophagy are these private corporations. So why are they more worried about nanotechnology than they are of these private corporations?

Private corporations don't produce nanotechnology? :confused:
"Public corporations" don't work on profit principles? :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My issue with nanotechnology is that it potentially offers a means to effectively reshape the world according to one's own whims. This, in my estimation, could be far more of a concern than any dumb runaway replicator.

Widespread molecular-scale manufacturing would also mean the end of intellectual property. Such things are meaningless in a world where one can download a blueprint file and use a nanofactory to turn the blueprints and some raw materials into the real deal.

I really, really hope that we develop Strong AI before advanced nanotechnology. This would mean that we would be vastly better equipped to deal with any nanotechnology-related issues.

[Hoplite]

My issue with nanotechnology is that it potentially offers a means to effectively reshape the world according to one's own whims. This, in my estimation, could be far more of a concern than any dumb runaway replicator.
A world where no one would have to buy things from stores? Where the balance of power shifts away from the private manufacturing interests? What is concerning about that?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A world where no one would have to buy things from stores? Where the balance of power shifts away from the private manufacturing interests? What is concerning about that?

So you don't see the potential disruption inherent in say, practically everyone who isn't destitute having the ability to easily cook up viruses, toxins, drugs and explosives? Combined with advanced rapid prototyping technology this means that small arms and ordnance would be much more easily available to individuals and small groups.

Of course like the internet that may have liberatory potential, but even the best case scenario it's going to be a rough road ahead, by my guess.

[Widerstand]

Is Nanotechnology the new century's nuclear fallout? I thought the LHC was that?

[Amphictyonis]

Fixed

auGQzaXGDKM

[Ravachol]

Not to bang on the same drum again, but Nanotechnology, like any technology, when developed under the logic of Capital will behave as such. Sure there are positive applications one can come up with but there plethora of uses related to (corporeal) surveillance (http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles4(3)/somatic.pdf), advancements in military capacity (http://web.mit.edu/ISN/) available only to those with the money to develop/pay for it and the fact that most patents related to nanotechnology are in the hands of a few corporations (IBM,Intel,Micron,etc.) as well as all other sub-molecular modifications or manufacturing made possible by Nanotechnology that is developed, obviously, with the aim to facilitate the maintanance of power and the accumulation of Capital.

[Hexen]

Is Nanotechnology the new century's nuclear fallout? I thought the LHC was that?

Very unlikely.

[Widerstand]

Very unlikely.

Seems the joke got lost on you...I was talking about the mass hype of how the world will end (nuclear fallout was exactly that hype back in the cold war).

[Hoplite]

So you don't see the potential disruption inherent in say, practically everyone who isn't destitute having the ability to easily cook up viruses, toxins, drugs and explosives? Combined with advanced rapid prototyping technology this means that small arms and ordnance would be much more easily available to individuals and small groups. It also means the the ability to counter such threats are also more readily available to other groups.

[piet11111]

So you don't see the potential disruption inherent in say, practically everyone who isn't destitute having the ability to easily cook up viruses, toxins, drugs and explosives? Combined with advanced rapid prototyping technology this means that small arms and ordnance would be much more easily available to individuals and small groups.

Of course like the internet that may have liberatory potential, but even the best case scenario it's going to be a rough road ahead, by my guess.

I actually never considered the possibility of having a Kalashnikov factory in my basement :blink:.

Noxion is right having such devices would very likely cause some really bad stuff to happen.