Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
(having visited the site)

At times the discussion reminded me of an Irish beer drinking contest
with commentary between rounds.

Bill, both you and Chris are certainly able combatants on paper at
least. And I like the format of concessions, arguments and exchanges.

Meanwhile, I think I'll pour me another beer and raise me mug in salute
to you both for bringing out the best in each other.
  

    
Hi Airman! Good to talk to you again!!

The posted discussion with Chris does have a boozy flow to it, doesn't
it? In a good way - warm-hearted, generous in allowing points, and all
in all like two people pursuing the truth rather than smacking each
other. It wasn't intentional, that's just how it evolved. 

Recent exchanges (not posted yet, should be soon) are even more
interesting, as I continue to advise 'em on what to do if they want to
be unlike R. Dangerfield and get more respect. It's sort of like FDR
counselling a foreign enemy. "First off, Herr Hitler, lose the
moustache, OK? It makes you a laughingstock. And the Holocaust thing,
quite apart from its ethical connotations, is giving you a massive
black eye in the international community..."

I suppose this bar-discussion flavor is intentional, in the sense that
its alternative was deliberately avoided: ie. formal, tit-for-tat,
nyah-nyah-nyah debate. "My learned colleague inexplicably fails to
recognize a fact that is intuitively obvious to the meanest
intelligence..." That's just kids pissing on each other in the
playground; academics do it all the time. You can also simulate this
type of thing very accurately by setting up a colony of starving rats
and watching 'em work. Interactions turn nasty when the rewards for
losers are zero and the rewards for victors are nearly zero, as in your
average university. Sociologically, college professors are like petty
gangsters: everything in their lives depends on their rep. They let
someone score points off 'em without a fight, and they're as good as
dead.

Anyway: Good to have you back. How was Nanofornia? Or should I say
Telefornia?
  

    
ACtually, I was in Pasafornia, the blackhole of LA freeways and host to
the Rose Bowl. A combo heat wave with high humidity from some hurricane
remnants strained and blew about half of the A/C units in places I had
to be.

That said...

Nanotechnology deserves a good dose of reality given that the Dtcom
stuff bombed taking dreams, visions and greed with it. Perhaps we have
been given a second chance by higher powers to incorporate technology as
a major change agent of civilization without bankrupting the populace.

Ad hominem arguments, flames and other trash talk has it's place in a
free fire zone usually with politics. While nanotechnology does have
some natural politics to it, the discussions have been quite friendly
as I have found most Drexlerians to be scientists at heart trying to
bridge fantasy, the future and reality into one big bridge.

However, your book certainly has caused a stir with a few original
quakes while echoing the quakes of Smalley et al. Even so, Drexler
is simply asking us to consider that once we have eliminated the
impossible like Holmes, what is left - no matter how improbable - is the
truth.

I dare say that your discussions put to rest a lot of the dead ends and
detours that one finds in the holy quest for the Nanoassembler. I would
hope that many other useful tools are constructed in the meantime thanks
to the likes of Richard Smalley mentoring new scientists in nanotech.
However, the area certainly has room at the bottom for the dreamers and
visionaries like Drexler.

I am reminded of the playful Feynman who looked at chicken noodle soup
and saw long chain molecules as part of the cure for the common cold.
Quite often, we stare at something and really don't have a clue as to
what we are looking at beyond one datapoint let alone a level of
observation.

I am also reminded of Einstein who despite his brilliance recognized
when to get a tutor in an area of mathematics he didn't understand very
well.

Drexler may be laughed at for many things. But the list of scientists
who were laughed at grows longer each year as does the addendum to those
laugh at once and now find acceptance into the dogmatic scientific
community. A fine example is the scientist who found that stomach
problems were really the result of a bug which most people had, and that
there was an easy cure, even a one time cure perhaps. THe problem was in
that the community thought it too obvious and not discovered for
decades. He prevailed in the end.

So while you and Chris have a go at it. Keep in mind, both of you, that
what might be foolish entertainment today just might become a reality
tomorrow, and even if it doesn't, at least have fun climbing the
mountains and documenting the right paths so that we don't have to
repear your mistakes.

By avoding old mistakes knowingly, we have time to make new ones.
  

    
Wise words. As the Atkinson-Phoenix Debates are unfolding, Chris (a
card-carrying nanobooster) and I (a card-carrying nanobuster) are
admitting some key things to one another from the sanctity of our
virtual barstools. He says: We nanoboosters have extrapolated too far,
basing our predictions on an invention (the molecular assembler) that
has yet to be made. We don't know that it can't be made; but equally we
don't know that it can. 

For my part, I have had to admit that the scientific establishment can
be utterly antithetical to change that's revolutionary as opposed to
incremental and evolutionary. 

From this dialogue has emerged a respect for one another's opinions
that is very healthy. After the last argument has been tabled, of
course, the decision on who's right will have to be given to that
ultimate referee, Father Time. We'll have to check in in a hundred
years or so to see who's right today (and who will have been right seen
from the future). 
  

    
The molecular assembler is simply a pedagogical exercise of shrinking
the Armatron toy or one of the MIT robots.

It is only one tool of many needed.

For example, take a walk through Sears. Now, focus on screwdrivers.
There are all sorts of sizes of screwdrivers. Did they all appear at
once. No, they started out a convenient size and then larger and smaller
ones were made as uses were found for them.

Take a look a construction site. Is there a pick and place machine? Yep,
but there is also a grader, a loader, a water truck, a regular truck, a
backhoe, a front loader, a scraper, etc....and that is just to get the
dirt graded and compacted before even the foundation is laid.

Part of the issue with nanotechnology is getting there. Assume you have
a nanoassembler, how do you get it to the actual site? A nanohauler? Or
an injector with a nanoGPS guidance system?

IMHO the failure of nanotechnology to advance quickly is the inability
to deliver the same machine on the microscale. As luck would have it,
the research is going full force at the MEMS level with excellent
results in the areas of motors (0.1 to 1 hp) built of silicon which
means we can produce them in great quantity and in the area of energy
where we can fuel motor-generators in such a way to replace batteries.

Which leads to the last point...what problem does a nanomachine solve?

THe fantasy of the nanochozen wannabefrozen crowd is life extension.
Many of them could extend their life simply by eating less and
exercising more thna just pushing back from the computer to get
something from the fridge.

At the same time Drexler drove a stake in the ground and caused thinking
so far inside the box that he was out of the scientific circle. Both of
them (Drexler and the Scientific community) have behaved like school
children at times. The high priests of science need funding to continue
thier ivory tower work leading to the riches of entrepreneurial freedom
albeit with a university license fee attached. So like miners, they need
to tunnel down level by level to the sample drilling of Drexler who
vacillates between Renaissance Man and Wildcatter.

So keep up the chatter. Perhaps the discussion should be updated
annually over a few beers.
  

    
Airman, would you be one of my interviewees in the event there's a
second edition? This is gold.
  

    
Sure...
  

    
The virtual beer here is as good as virtual beer gets.