"Why the future doesn't need us" "Why the future doesn't need us" is an article written by
Bill Joy, then Chief Scientist at
Sun Microsystems, in the April 2000 issue of
Wired magazine. In the article, he argues that "Our most powerful 21st-century technologies —
robotics,
genetic engineering, and
nanotech — are threatening to make humans an
endangered species." Joy argues that developing technologies provide a much greater danger to humanity than any technology before it has ever presented. In particular, he focuses on
genetics,
nanotechnology and
robotics. He argues that 20th-century technologies of destruction, such as the
nuclear bomb, were limited to large governments, due to the complexity and cost of such devices, as well as the difficulty in acquiring the required materials. He also voices concern about increasing computer power. His worry is that computers will eventually become more intelligent than we are, leading to such
dystopian scenarios as
robot rebellion. He notably quotes the
Unabomber on this topic. After the publication of the article, Bill Joy suggested assessing technologies to gauge their implicit dangers, as well as having scientists refuse to work on technologies that have the potential to cause harm. In the
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001 article titled
A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists, Bill Joy was criticized for having technological tunnel vision on his prediction, by failing to consider social factors. In
Ray Kurzweil's
The Singularity Is Near, he questioned the regulation of potentially dangerous technology, asking "Should we tell the millions of people afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the development of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these same technologies may someday be used for malevolent purposes?".
Prey Prey is a 2002 novel by
Michael Crichton which features an artificial swarm of nanorobots which develop intelligence and threaten their human inventors. The novel generated concern within the nanotechnology community that the novel could negatively affect public perception of nanotechnology by creating fear of a similar scenario in real life.
Drexler–Smalley debate Richard Smalley, best known for co-discovering the soccer ball-shaped “buckyball” molecule and a leading advocate of nanotechnology and its many applications, was an outspoken critic of the idea of
molecular assemblers, as advocated by Eric Drexler. In 2001 he introduced scientific objections to them attacking the notion of universal assemblers in a 2001
Scientific American article, leading to a
rebuttal later that year from Drexler and colleagues, and eventually to an exchange of
open letters in 2003. Smalley criticized Drexler's work on nanotechnology as naive, arguing that chemistry is extremely complicated, reactions are hard to control, and that a universal assembler is science fiction. Smalley believed that such assemblers were not physically possible and introduced scientific objections to them. His two principal technical objections, which he had termed the “fat fingers problem" and the "sticky fingers problem”, argued against the feasibility of molecular assemblers being able to precisely select and place individual atoms. He also believed that Drexler's speculations about apocalyptic dangers of molecular assemblers threaten the public support for development of nanotechnology. Smalley first argued that "fat fingers" made MNT impossible. He later argued that nanomachines would have to resemble chemical enzymes more than Drexler's assemblers and could only work in water. He believed these would exclude the possibility of "molecular assemblers" that worked by precision picking and placing of individual atoms. Also, Smalley argued that nearly all of modern chemistry involves reactions that take place in a solvent (usually water), because the small molecules of a solvent contribute many things, such as lowering binding energies for
transition states. Since nearly all known chemistry requires a solvent, Smalley felt that Drexler's proposal to use a high vacuum environment was not feasible. Smalley also believed that Drexler's speculations about apocalyptic dangers of self-replicating machines that have been equated with "molecular assemblers" would threaten the public support for development of nanotechnology. To address the debate between Drexler and Smalley regarding molecular assemblers,
Chemical & Engineering News published a point-counterpoint consisting of an exchange of letters that addressed the issues. Drexler also addresses this in Nanosystems by showing mathematically that well designed catalysts can provide the effects of a solvent and can fundamentally be made even more efficient than a solvent/enzyme reaction could ever be. Drexler had difficulty in getting Smalley to respond, but in December 2003,
Chemical & Engineering News carried a 4-part debate.
Royal Society report on the implications of nanotechnology The
Royal Society and
Royal Academy of Engineering's 2004 report on the implications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies was inspired by
Prince Charles' concerns about
nanotechnology, including
molecular manufacturing. However, the report spent almost no time on molecular manufacturing. In fact, the word "
Drexler" appears only once in the body of the report (in passing), and "molecular manufacturing" or "
molecular nanotechnology" not at all. The report covers various risks of nanoscale technologies, such as nanoparticle toxicology. It also provides a useful overview of several nanoscale fields. The report contains an annex (appendix) on
grey goo, which cites a weaker variation of
Richard Smalley's contested argument against molecular manufacturing. It concludes that there is no evidence that autonomous, self replicating nanomachines will be developed in the foreseeable future, and suggests that regulators should be more concerned with issues of nanoparticle toxicology. == Initial commercial applications ==