I’d like to propose an analogy to the nanotechnology question.
Let’s suppose that 200 years ago, we were arguing over whether heavier-than-air flight machines would be developed. One could point at birds and bats as proof that heavier than air flight is in fact possible.
At the same time, that doesn’t necessarily imply that there are no limits. We don’t have jetpacks or personal helicopters yet; Air travel is expensive and noisy; You have to wait around crowded airports and deal with rude airline personnel; etc.
Nevertheless, what we can do with aircraft is very very cool. Trips that used to take days or weeks take only hours. (On the darker side, we can decimate nations without setting foot on the ground.)
In the same way, I believe that nanotechnology is possible and will produce some very cool results. But there will be limits. And dangers.
Again absolutely correct. I will once more amend my original question.
What is the likelyhood of these things within our lifetimes? (Assume 50 years.) Where “these things” is read as non-biological nanorobots. i.e. Reciprocytes, or this sort of bizarreness rather than improved cells and proteins. In other words, Nanites that are “manufactured” rather than “grown”.
I believe cancerous cells, sperm and ova are effectively immortal cells. Can’t remember the cite, but I also recall reading that the hydra is an organism that is vastly long-lived.
Getting machines to repair a damaged brain by reconnecting neural links is one thing (although if you look at meat in a freezer it seems it would be impossible for anyone to know which broken paths joined to which, given the obvious amount of damage). I would suggest getting machines to maintain every molecule in the nucleus of every cell in the body is an entirely different proposition, which might even require localised violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
But on the atomic level the Second Law can be violated for several seconds at a time. The place where I originally read about it was the NY Times, but you’d have to pay for that article by now. Here is an active Cite.
I think the main obstacle to the really far-out nanotech is complexity. I mean, think about how little we really know about the human brain, or even much of the human body for that matter. Think about all the experiments that will have to be done to figure out how things work. Think about the vast amounts of data and connections that will have to be made. Sure, in 15 years we managed to map the human genome, but it hasn’t told us much yet – that’s the work of the next couple of decades, at least. I think it’s just going to take time (100+ years?) before we have any real skill in manipulating the human body at such a fine and coordinated level.
Similarly, if you want a bucket of goo that you can drop on a planet and have it terraformed in a year, you’re going to have to wait a long time. I mean, think about the zillions of things that need to be done to terraform a planet in a coordinated and timed manner. Hell, brain surgery or the control systems for a nuclear power plant have nothing on the level of complexity we’re talking about here.
Of course, getting much “simpler” technologies, such as some way of scraping the plaque off your artery walls, or marking & killing cancer cells, will likely come along within 20 or so years, IMO.
Beyond the technical hurdles will be those created by politicians and others who want to regulate that kind of technology. Look at cloning. There exists a whole new field that could cure many of today’s nastiest diseases, and its so heavily regulated that only a fraction of the progress that could be made is being done. I think the same will apply to nanotechnology. There’s lots of potential there, but there are more obsticles than the technical ones.
