Bio-Nanotech scenarios, want to build some?!....
- Hi there,
I am interested in thinking about and building scenarios that have a
strong biological component. My name is Erik Sayle and I am a
futurist in San Francisco with a diverse background and strong
biotech knowledge and experience.
For example, one scenario could be the world in 10 years with Gene
Therapy, Microfluidics, BioMEMS, implantable Biochips (and
surveillance?), Biowarfare :-( , agricultural biotech, escaped
genes, next generation drugs, mood modulators, Genomics, DNA &
Protein computers, rapid diagnostics, biometrics, scanning, etc.
Then of course converge these with nanotech, computers, telecomm, AI
etc. Add a dash of Kurzweil, Bill Joy and David Brin for flavor!
My scenarios tend to be out of the box, assuming we are at an
exponential phase of growth with rapid convergence leading to
multiplicative effects that might be radical or unexpected. I try to
factor in distributed and rapid bio & technological advancement,
external influences, politics & business and much more as well.
As James Burkes documentary "Connections" vividly illustrates,
everything is connected, but often in unexpected and powerful ways.
(Around 1400 AD, the Ottoman empire increased taxation of the silk
route motivating Western European countries to build ships to bypass
the Ottomans = Colonialism & the world we live in today - Thanks!)
The difference today is that 10 years of our time might equal ~300
years of their time. (But I digress.....)
The scenarios could be long and the impact massive. I have had
difficulties finding bio scenarios as many future scenarios
represent the backgrounds of the authors which are often areas like
computers, business, physics, philosophy, mathematics, military,
cognition, optimists, MD's and the occasional Molecular Biologist.
Or they tend to be relatively linear except in the area of expertise
of the author. All these other disciplines are great, and I want to
think of them, I just think that bio may have a VERY significant
impact in the very near future.
The scenarios are also pragmatic and relevant to me and my life span
in todays years. Making scenarios from tomorrow out to 5, 10 & 20
years. Pragmatic in that I want to be around (with you) in 20 years
to watch these predictions come true! Only IFF we make it 20 years
can we even hope to transcend, singularize, upload, etc
So is there anyone here interested in this bio angle????
If you are, please contact me and or discuss it here.
My email is
- Hi all,
This is my first post here so a brief introduction: My name's Eric Hackborn, I'm
a computer programmer who's been fascinated with nanotechnology and other
near-future possibilities for a long time, but my knowledge of such topics is
pretty limited, so I mostly hang around various forums and listen.
Now, on to a minor question that's bugging me. The following transcript is from
a conversation betwen ray kurzweil and vernor vinge on the singularity
>Gardner: If there were Singularities elsewhere, what signs would they leave behindI find this statement quite interesting. Doesn't it assume that if a singularity had, say
>that we could recognize? Wouldn't the universe already have been converted to
>"smart matter" if other races had hit this point?
>RayKurzweil: Yes, indeed. That is why I believe that we are first. That's why we don't
>notice any other intelligences out there and why SETI will fail. They're not there. That
>may seem unlikely, but so is the existence of our universe with its marvelously precise
>rules to allow matter to evolve, etc.
expanded through the universe, we would have some way of recognizing it? (when, by
definition of the singularity, it would seem more likely that an outside obvserver would
have a greater chance of not recognizing it).
Is it remotely possible that this has already occurred and the fundamental structure and
properties of matter we observe have already been reconfigured, and that in fact
explains some of the quirkier behaviour we observe (I'm thinking specifically of the
effect I've read called 'photon entanglement' but perhaps I just greatly misunderstand
the concept)? Is it laughable to suggest the current state of the universe was caused
by some intelligence-driven singularity? Or is this a well-known theory (outside of
religious doctrines, of course)?
- Eric X. Hackborn wrote:
>Well-known, no; well-developed, yes.
> Is it laughable to suggest the current state of the universe
> was caused by some intelligence-driven singularity? Or is this a
> well-known theory (outside of religious doctrines, of course)?
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
- Dear Mr.Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ,
Focused on the R&D of nano-structured titanium dioxide
in anti-ultraviolet, anti-bacteria,anti-static and
photocatalysis��Shenzhen Chengyin Technology Co., Ltd.
(www.chengying.com), is a China based professional
The company has set up production bases both in
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
with best regards,
Shenzhen Chengying Technologies Co.,Ltd
Email: gmo@..., marcopolie@...
Yahoo Messenger ID: marcopolie
--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@...>
> Eric X. Hackborn wrote:__________________________________________________
> > Is it laughable to suggest the current state of
> the universe
> > was caused by some intelligence-driven
> singularity? Or is this a
> > well-known theory (outside of religious
> doctrines, of course)?
> Well-known, no; well-developed, yes.
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for
> Artificial Intelligence
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
- "Eric X. Hackborn" wrote:
> Is it remotely possible that this has alreadyThe effect you're thinking of is known as "quantum nonlocality" or the
> occurred and the fundamental structure and
> properties of matter we observe have already
> been reconfigured, and that in fact
> explains some of the quirkier behaviour we
> observe (I'm thinking specifically of the
> effect I've read called 'photon entanglement'
> but perhaps I just greatly misunderstand
> the concept)?
violation of Bell's inequalities, an experimentally demonstrated fact.
It can't be explained by assuming there's some hidden machinery behind
the physics we observe, because the whole point of Bell's inequalities
is that they apply to any system whose physics is strictly local and
explained by the workings of possibly hidden machinery.
> Is it laughable to suggest the currentI'll try not to laugh, but to my mind this kind of speculation isn't
> state of the universe was caused
> by some intelligence-driven singularity?
much better than "Maybe the whole universe is just a single atom in the
forearm of some huge giant..."
> Or is this a well-known theory (outside ofIt is a religious notion. These days people are so awed by computers
> religious doctrines, of course)?
that they think data = divinity or information = spirit or that God
literally is a machine.
"Primitive" man worshipped wooden idols, and told creation stories
involving animals, the Sun, water and spirit. But here in the technical
vastness of the future, we worship silicon idols, and tell creation
stories involving quantum states or worse, bits, machines, and
At least the quantum cosmology theories are supposed to be able to
predict quantitative facts such as the distribution of matter in the
universe. Speculation that the universe is a giant computer can predict
nothing, since, as we know, the point about cyberspace is that you can
do anything in it.