Nanotechnology and Medicine

I thought this was a really neat transcript on nanotechnology and medicine. What medical researchers are expecting from nanotechnology, where they are now in the field, and where they expect to be in 10 to 15 years.

http://www.sagecrossroads.net/Default.aspx?tabid=55

"Well, there’s a lot of discussion right now about cancer. I mean, it would be virtually every disease. But there’s a lot of talk right now about cancer, and the National Cancer Institute has a fairly ambitious goal of curing cancer and alleviating suffering due to cancer by the year 2015. I think that’s a very ambitious goal, but as we look at the power of the tools that we will have in nanotechnology that may well be achievable. "

Wow - I was reading this and I saw the 2015 and for some reason, I'm thinking that they are talking about a really, really long time into the future and then my brain kicked in and I saw that it was only 10 years away.

Awesome.

Yes, it is really fasciniating stuff. It is a very long read but worth it in my opinion. He did go on to say that 10 years is probably an unrealistic goal, but at the pace our technology is moving that it is entirely possible.

Great article, thanks Jessica.

It seems like advances in nanotech are being made at quite a pace, yet it's mostly under the media radar, probably because there's not much in the way of physical products or actual applications yet.

The molecular manufacturing concept is pretty mind blowing, it would completely revolutionize the manufacturing industry once the technology became affordable. I imagine that since such a machine would require digital blueprints of whatever if was supposed to make that computer programs would become avaliable that would allow one to design one's own products. It would take the industry away from mass factory based production to individual artistry. Sort of like in SL where the production cost of each object is nil, the price becomes purely determined by the quality and beauty of the design itself. If used on a wide scale globally it also could prove a huge carbon sink, provided people didn't start cutting down and burning trees for the carbon to put in their desktop factories. If waste products were used, or if the carbon could be separated out of CO2 in the atmosphere there might be significant environmental benifits.

I think the concerns of the scientists over loss of jobs due to such technology is unfounded, there were similar concerns at the beginning of the industrial revolution over factory machines taking away people's jobs, and they did, but people always seem to find something else that needs to be done.

What I find disappointing is the talk of the potential military applications of nanotech. Why is it that everytime a new technology is developed there're people who have to say, 'OK, but how can we kill people with it?'

The medical potential is even more exciting, I look forward to the day when I have keener senses, can do trigonometry in my head and can expect to live a couple of centuries. The great thing is that according to the guys being interviewed, that might not just be wishful thinking.

i guess if you have to kill people it's better to kill them with tiny robots then kill them with 2000 pound bombs.

not sure why tho......

Actually within the context of the discussion it was raised as an ethical consideration. In other words, "How can we address and / or limit the potential use of this new technology for those that would use this technology for military / weapons applications?" I am personally glad that questions like this are raised and thought of BEFORE the technology becomes available and not after.



The answer to that question is found within the transcript. It is much easier, assuming the technology is available, to create a lethal synthetic chemical compound via molecular level engineering for which there is no cure, than it is to build a nuclear weapon. The delivery of such a compound is also much easier and far harder to detect than a 2000 Lb. bomb.

The nanotechnology side has to do with the engineering. You're not 'killing people with tiny robots' you are using those tiny robots to create unprecedented compounds that are virtually undetectable and highly lethal.

so in other words "tiny robots don't kill people, people kill people"?

Warfare and the missuse of nanotechnology was not the focus of the transcript. A few points were raised in regards to the possible missuse of the emerging technology, however, it was not the focus of the discussion.

And, to answer your question Zuzi, yes, technologies do not kill people, people kill people. They simply use technology to make it more effective.

Aarrgh! Weapons! Weapons! Weapons! I didn't mean to steer the thread this way. I was simply disparing the fact that with all the massive good this technology has the pontential to do we have to worry about the fact that some of the hairless apes on this planet will want to use it to kill or dominate other hairless apes. It really doesn't sound to me as if weaponized nanos have the potential to be much more damaging or portable than many of the chemical and biological weapons now in existence. The main concern seems to be that they would be easier to manufacture and it is certainly good that the scientists developing this technology are concerned about it but there will always be unethical scientists who are willing to develop such things.

Let's talk about longevity and plentiful long lasting household items instead.

anybody read Engines Of Creation? i've had people tell me it's good but haven't got to it yet.

(Yes, I'm about to make ANOTHER Neal Stephenson reference)

The Diamond Age had an interesting take on nanotech - that it would become so pervasive that they would be flying everywhere in cities, monitoring for other nanotech. Hunter-killer nanotech would attack others, and result in dusting of "toner" when the scrap would accumulate like dust on the ground.

Scary.

Soon you two will be purchasing sets of nanobots that will kill any intruding nanobots trying to enter your home property.

It'll be interesting when everyone has their very own customized immune system. Applying patches would be interesting. T'would also be handy for 'growing' enhancements to the body in-vivo.

I'm not sure that nanotech could become pervasive enough for the accumulating-dust scenario, though... I'm not sure we'd trust the technology enough to let it free-range like that, not to mention what silicate dusts do to organic tissue.

Well, first of excluding weapons as a developmental aspect but we know some fucktard with a cat up his ass will do it.

Think of Longevity. Imagine Nanobots reversing aging while repairing deformities.
Nanobots restructuring DNA sequencing and then what happens. Nobody dies cept for being shot.

OMG Flashbacks from Logans run go rampant.

Additionaly with nanobots Imagine building FTL ships in orbit by merely sending up junk to them to assimilate.

Problem then would be population control to be honest well that and information control.

Imagine having production Nanites that could build subsequent type nanites based on a download from an internet website to your production chamber.


Then we get into Weapons...Mind control nanites...Viral nanites...eventually earth would become once again a war ground because the human race is too stupid and greedy to make use of something effectively without perverting it for war.

While the progress is wonderous the possible imact negatively is staggering.

Shadow