Skip to main content

True Nanotech may have arrived

From Metamodern, Drexler himself has commented on what I've been thinking for a few months now:

This quote probably sums it all up the best: "The progress I have in mind centers on advances in atomically precise fabrication by chemical and biological means, and these advances now have reached a level that places the implementation of first-generation artificial APM systems within reach. These, however, also won’t resemble slick, large-scale, general-purpose HT-APM systems. Instead, they will support the implementation of more-capable second-generation APM systems that can support a fast design-build-test cycle and thereby enable a well-focused and well-organized develpment program to rapidly ascend a ladder of technologies leading to HT-APM.

Available technologies now enable the design and fabrication of intricate, atomically precise nanometer-scale objects made from a versatile engineering polymer, together with intricate, atomically precise, 100-nanometer scale frameworks that can be used to organize these objects to form larger 3D structures. These components can and have been designed to undergo spontaneous, atomically precise self assembly. Together, they provide an increasingly powerful means for organizing atomically precise structures of million-atom size, with the potential of incorporating an even wider range of functional components."

Did you catch that?

We now have the tools to make the tools that will build real nanotech. Let me clarify, Drexlarian style Mechanosynthesis is now at the stage of where feasibility has been proven, large scale 3d positional assembly has been proven, and the main problem left is an engineering challenge to design the first generation of positional manufacturing devices.

The system is basic. DNA programmed to structurally assemble latticeworks in 2D, Proteins to construct single dimensional "strings". But they offer all the potential needed to create atomically precise structures. Layered 2D sheets built into 3D structures, 1D strings connected side by side into 2D, then layered as well to make 3D.

And because it is based in DNA and proteins, it can do it in parallel in millions of iterations. Yes, it's liquid phase, yes it's limited. But it's the true beginning.

For comparison, I would say it's at the era of punchcard reading computers. And if it follows the same exponential curve that they did, doubling every two years or so, we may still have a few decades before it matures. But with the fact that the Internet allows instant dissemination of designs, sequences, and 3D models, I am not willing to bet it's going to take anywhere near that long.

The last year alone has seemed to have made as much progress in nanotech as the previous eight did. I can't even begin to make a mathematical or statistical measuring system, and it's certainly not going to be as carefully analyzed as a Kurzweil prediction, and I will almost certainly believe that the actual progress might have been more spread out and only being released in a free-er scientific era than the bush regime, but if we follow that 8 to 1 ratio, the next gen of assemblers might only be 46 days away, and gen 3 just 5 days later...

I don't think it will be anywhere near that rapid, but that is the thing with exponential curves. They can sneak up on you fast.

Considering we are already working on macroscale assemblers that use the exact same line joined to line, layer by layer designs in 3D Rapid Prototyping machines, once engineers begin seriously applying their skills... it might not be a hard transition to make at all.

Welcome to 2010. And just maybe... the birth of the post scarcity world.


Popular posts from this blog

As you know, I have friends all across the political spectrum, some of whom are liberal, some of whom are conservative. Sometimes, they call me names because I express viewpoints that they find objectionable. Note that I am including both sides in that statement, and not addressing it at either side specifically. To be blunt, I find it mildly amusing that simply stating a conclusion I have personally drawn based on observation and evidence can generally provoke extreme responses from all sides depending on whether that conclusion comes down in favor of one political "ideological certainty" or another. People who will laud my observations because they support their ideological views one day can be calling me every vile name in the book the next when another observation points out that a different ideological view is based on half-truths, extremely shaky evidence, or just completely at odds with observed reality. So, in general, I ignore the usual attempts to browbeat me into c…

How Freedom of Information will Change the World

Another rescue from's wholesale deletion of my articles.

So, 2012 has ended and everywhere you look, despite our having survived the “end of the world” you see pessimism, gloom, doom and negativity. No matter where you live, it seems everyone is convinced that there’s just no hope. So many people have stopped trying to do anything, while they “wait for god” or “wait for the Singularity.” Or simply wait, period. The negativity is everywhere. So, here’s one of my longwinded rambling rants, against that negativity.

So, you feel doomed, feel like the corporations have won, that nothing will ever change, or that if it does, the same old same old will make sure that you never get to share in the glorious new future? That only the rich will have immortality, that corporations will ensure that nanofactories are DRM’d, that nothing is ever free, and that the future is one in which Big Brother will control everything in one immortal Dictatorship? Trust me, I can understand y…

First You Must Question

Another preservation, since seems to have removed almost all of my articles I had there.

I’m going to insult your intelligence today.
No, seriously, I am. Because today I’m going to be talking to all of you who truly, firmly and completely think you base your world views on science, rational thinking, and a solid grasp of reality. I’m talking to those of you who claim to reject anything but that which can be empirically proven, mathematically defined, and subject to verified repeatable experiments. To those of you who believe that SCIENCE (note the emphasis) holds all the answers.
I deal with a lot of people like you. In fact, I recently wrote an article called “Against Consensus” which was deliberately targeted to draw fire from precisely those people who believe that “consensus” has any value at all in science. Today, I’m going to address those of you who rather rigidly think that “Science has all the answers.”
Don’t get me wrong. Science, as it is SUPPOSED to be pract…