The author’s interest in nanotechnology stems from the sheer gravity of the claims made by those researching and developing this technology; in essence that the capacity to manipulate and program matter with atomic precision will witness a sweeping technological revolution, that could make the industrial revolution seem almost inconsequential in comparison. Molecular nanotechnology could potentially deliver tremendous advances in miniaturization, materials, and manufacturing of all kinds.
It could completely remodel engineering, chemistry, medicine, and computer echnology, transforming the economic, ecological, and cultural foundation of our lives. As well as the fact that computer technology is at the heart of the development of nanotechnology, there is a very high relevance to the benefits that this field will give to computer technology.
Molecular manufacturing could greatly expand the limits of computer technology and its possibilities. ith micron-scale computer CPU’s being produced that are efficient enough to let miniaturized desktop systems contain literally millions of processors. Physics today uses enormous machines to investigate situations that exist for less than 10 second. ” (Woodcock & Davis 1991 p. 16) Clearly, this scenario would change unimaginably with the advent of this technology as materials over 100 times stronger than those in normal use today would be engineered enabling huge reductions in the bulk of products.
The impact this could have on virtually all areas of digital cultures would be vast. “In either case, though, if these ideas as products are not commercially viable, they become no more important than the preSocratics, relics of esteryear for the amusement of idle scholars”(Sassower 1995 p. 112) This quote points to the need for this technology to prove itself as relevant from a capitalist perspective and the concept of ‘supercomputers’ clearly would.
Every manufacturing process currently employed can be simply viewed as a method for arranging atoms, and their properties depend on how those atoms are arranged. Most of these methods arrange atoms in a very crude manner and even the most advanced commercial microchips produced today can be considered grossly irregular at the atomic scale. However, technology is fast becoming molecularly precise. Advances in physics, molecular biology, and computer science are focusing on the ability to control the structure and function of matter with molecular precision.
Nanotechnology, otherwise known as molecular engineering, is the ability to build structures to complex, atomic specifications and refers to technology that features nanometer scale ranging from fine particles to thin coatings to large molecules. The concept of nanotechnology was conceived by a man named Eric Drexler. In his book “Engines of Creation”, released in 1986, he defined nanotechnology as “Technology based on the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules to build structures to complex atomic specifications” (Drexler 1986, p. 288).
Laboratory researchers are currently working towards the creation of machines potentially as small as DNA. The basic concept of nanotechnology is simple. Whereas chemists combine molecules in solution, allowing them to wander and collide at random, leading to unwanted reactions, nanomachines will instead move, split, ombine and position molecules in specific locations in a pre-determined sequence. By doing so, the manner in which the molecules react will be controlled, and complex structures can be built with atomically precise building blocks.
The molecular engineering community is currently proposing the ideal that molecular nanotechnology will produce clean energy and materials to replace older technologies, and clean up the toxic mess left by them. This can be achieved by incorporating self-regulating systems in the form of “self- regulating assembly” into nanotechnology from the start. This means that molecular assemblers would have limited replication rates through these built in controls. For example, “nanobacteria” are organisms less than a micron wide which already has a very slow replication rate.
They have a “limiting” factor that prevents them from turning everything into grey goo despite them being such a common part of the environment. Development principles of the research community work on the grounds that artificial replicators must be incapable of replication in a natural, uncontrolled environment and evolution within the context of a self- eplicating manufacturing system is discouraged. Molecular nanotechnology designs should limit proliferation specifically and any replicating systems should provide traceability.
Specific design guidelines state that any self- replicating device having sufficient onboard information to describe its own manufacture should encrypt it in a way that any replication error will produce a blueprint that is randomized. Generally, there are two ways available to produce nanomaterials. The top- down way is by starting with a bulk material and breaking it into smaller pieces using energy (mechanical, chemical etc. This miniaturisation approach basically makes relatively imprecise structures smaller.
The opposite, bottom-up approach makes precise chemical structures larger synthesising the material from atomic or molecular species via chemical reactions, allowing for the precursor particles to grow in size. Both the top-down and the bottom-up approaches can be done in gas, solid states or supercritical fluids, liquid or in vacuum. Manufacturers are interested in the ability to control particle size and shape, size distribution, degree of particle agglomeration and particle composition.
Bottom-up nanotechnology is the least developed area of nanotechnology and is struggling with the combination it requires of nanoscale precision with volume demand. Nanotechnology aims to deliver unparalleled advances, but all of these benefits will require extremely sophisticated programming of the nano- machines themselves. Investigations into properties of complex systems and emergent behaviour have helped researchers understand how a number of small systems can be combined to form a large system with qualitatively different behaviour.
Other areas of study (including chaos theory, artificial ntelligence and studies into complex self-organising systems) also show that systems which have many, rather than few components become qualitatively different. Such systems have emergent properties of the entire system that are not those of the individual components. Certain classes of useful emergent properties may well be easy to control. Many organisms, for example have emergent hierarchical branching structures including nervous systems, arteries and lungs.
Such emergent structures prove to be particularly simple to program because ultimately they have “a lace for every atom, and every atom in its place. ” Having no moving parts, such materials are likely to be much less vulnerable to failures and in many cases would simply degrade gradually. Additionally, unwanted emergent properties would be less likely. This process where materials become less vulnerable to failures and where unwanted emergent properties would be phased out can be seen as a metaphor of evolution.
However, “though chaotic systems may be stable at the abstract level… they are highly unstable at the level we experience them directly” (Wooley 1992 p. 88) Perhaps many of hese theories would prove to exhibit totally different results in practice rather than in theory. Many researchers advocate an evolutionary model of technological changes, looking at human technology as the continuation of natural evolution. The emergence of molecular manufacturing could be looked at as cosmic order born from chaos then gradually evolving towards organization followed by self-replication.
Evolutionary principles are supposed to determine what paths are possible and what the limits of technological achievements are. Used as a metaphor for evolution, therefore, nanotechnology could evolve nto spiritual machines and god-like intelligence. For the many active promoters of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology is the means whereas artificial intelligence is the end. From this perspective, the human race has developed computer technology as part of the evolution of life to overcome the limitations of our human brain. Very simply, human technologies are the continuation of biological evolution.
Similarly, cybernetics, which is intrinsically linked with nanotechnology, could also be viewed as part of the continuation of biological evolution. Defined as “the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine”, cybernetics is not an exact science and is often used to include automatic control systems of considerable complexity, for example our own nervous system.
In the not too distant future, the world could witness large portions of mankind being electronically augmented with cybernetics, or at least benefiting hugely from advances in medicine through nanotechnology. Primatology and cybernetics are linked in other ways as well. Primates and cyborgs are simultaneously entities and metaphors, living beings and arrative constructions. ” (Gray 1995 p. 322) Conceivably, medical nanobots will repair and help out our natural biology, perusing our bloodstreams, entering cells for repair and maintenance, correcting any damage at the molecular level. Foreign, unwanted organisms will be attacked and all waste removed, keeping fat-levels and metabolism in perfect working order.
The evolution of his technology could see mankind’s molecules, organs, tissue systems and overall body design be re-engineered through nanotechnology, leading to greater functionality, new capabilities and enhanced senses? This presents the possibility that one day human beings will never suffer any physical imperfection and never grow old or get sick… in essence immortality. However, “Foucault takes from postmodernism the concepts of fragmentation and multiplicity, the linguistically created subject, and the challenge to causality.
As a poststructuralist, Foucault attacks structuralism’s “scientific pretensions”-the quests for foundation, truth, objectivity, certainty and systems. ” (Eve, Horsfall & Lee 1997 p. 4) Clearly, from this perspective, these claims would need examining further to establish their egree of validity in the real world. Here, Foucault can be seen to take issue with those that consider objects of knowledge as real. Indeed, presently we are quite far away from achieving this ideal of a nano- technological utopia for mankind and human development.
Most laboratory researchers are advancing with shorter-term goals than molecular manufacturing. Cleaner, more efficient chemical process and molecular frameworks useful in medical therapies are viewed as being achievable practical applications for this technology in the near future. Other views iffer greatly on this subject “Organisms are not random assemblages of working parts, the results of trial and error tinkering by natural selection.
They reflect a deep pattern of ordered relationships. ” (Goodwin 1994 p. 98) However, the history of science shows that research often has unintended consequences. A natural consequence of improvements in these areas could be the development of a technology foundation that would be used to produce the machines needed for more advanced molecular manufacturing systems. As such, we are very close to witnessing the first applications of any ractical value in this field.
Ralph Merkle, a researcher at Xeroxs Palo Alto Research Center, who is one of the leading researchers in the field, feels that within 20 years given the right funding, nanotechnology will be making its first public appearance. The implications of success are the prospect that nanotechnology could potentially change everything. Once in place mankind and the planet it inhabits would never be the same. However, the enormous opportunities that these technological advances could result in, would also bring the otential for disastrous abuse.
The possibility of instant destruction is superseding strategies of deterrence. We’re now going into a new phase… it could lead us to apocalypse (absolute destruction)” (Virilio 1997 p. 53) The resulting military capabilities and their potential misuse need much consideration. “The only functional component of intelligence agencies is the one that will be replaced by machines” (De Landa 1991 p. 203) Clearly, the decisions made in the next two decades in this sphere of research, could have massive impact of the future of humanity.
