I was setting up my iGoogle preferences and thought, "Hey, why not have a Youtube box for a recommended video of the day." And, behold, the very first video that came up was the following:
This is the infamous "grey goo problem," which was first discussed by K. Eric Drexler in his groundbreaking book "Engines of Creation." It's truly amazing how this is still one of the first things people hear about when the word "nanotechnology" comes up in popular culture.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Barack Obama's "NEW DEAL"
With nationwide unemployment at 7.2 percent and in the midst of far-reaching economic crises, according to some, Barack Obama's economic stimulus package -- which passed through the U.S. House of Representatives last week -- is reminiscent of FDR's New Deal.
At least, this is the point of view argued by Eric Peterson in ColoradoBIZ magazine.
An interesting analogy is drawn within the article between the major public works project of the New Deal and what looks to be Obama's major public works project of his stimulus package. FDR invested $1 billion in expanding the U.S. interstate highway system. Today, with that infrastructure already in place, Obama looks to focus on a massive energy efficiency program. . . . Just as the interstate highway program required a massive investment of manpower, an expansive effort to overhaul the existing energy structure would require a similar commitment.
Also anticipated in the package is a focus on the renewable energy industry. Accordingly, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. might see an increase in funding and be charged with the task of bringing some floundering renewable energy technologies to maturity -- such as solar PV.
Recent studies have suggested that increases in energy efficiency combined with bringing renewable energy technologies to their full potential still cannot match current energy demand in the U.S. -- and demand is only growing. The apparent solution to this problem is to increase the effectiveness of existing renewable energy technologies. Wind, according to most, is a mature technology, and is only capable of gobbling-up about 20 percent of our current electrical needs; this doesn't even take into account the mobile fuel source energy the U.S. consumes.
To me, the best option to make solar PV realistic -- it's current costs are a full order of magnitude higher than any other realistic energy alternatives -- is to increase the efficiency of thin films and lower production costs. NREL is working on these problems. . . . There may be room for improvement with PV. And considering the knowledge that everything else combined will still fall short -- assuming we don't suddenly ramp up nuclear -- increasing R&D efforts in this area could prove to be a very valuable investment for the Obama administration.
At least, this is the point of view argued by Eric Peterson in ColoradoBIZ magazine.
An interesting analogy is drawn within the article between the major public works project of the New Deal and what looks to be Obama's major public works project of his stimulus package. FDR invested $1 billion in expanding the U.S. interstate highway system. Today, with that infrastructure already in place, Obama looks to focus on a massive energy efficiency program. . . . Just as the interstate highway program required a massive investment of manpower, an expansive effort to overhaul the existing energy structure would require a similar commitment.
Also anticipated in the package is a focus on the renewable energy industry. Accordingly, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. might see an increase in funding and be charged with the task of bringing some floundering renewable energy technologies to maturity -- such as solar PV.
Recent studies have suggested that increases in energy efficiency combined with bringing renewable energy technologies to their full potential still cannot match current energy demand in the U.S. -- and demand is only growing. The apparent solution to this problem is to increase the effectiveness of existing renewable energy technologies. Wind, according to most, is a mature technology, and is only capable of gobbling-up about 20 percent of our current electrical needs; this doesn't even take into account the mobile fuel source energy the U.S. consumes.
To me, the best option to make solar PV realistic -- it's current costs are a full order of magnitude higher than any other realistic energy alternatives -- is to increase the efficiency of thin films and lower production costs. NREL is working on these problems. . . . There may be room for improvement with PV. And considering the knowledge that everything else combined will still fall short -- assuming we don't suddenly ramp up nuclear -- increasing R&D efforts in this area could prove to be a very valuable investment for the Obama administration.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"Sabrina is no-longer merely Sabrina"
This is a video linking nanotechnology and "synthetic human evolution." According to the video, were are already at this point now.
As discussed in my previous NanoFutures posts, this raises an awful lot of philosophical questions about where we actually want science to lead us.
To me, the biggest problem with educational videos, such as this one, is that it really tells the viewer nothing about what existing nanotechnology is; at the same time, it links the term to a grab-bag of future technologies that the public may or may not be in favor of. Meanwhile, there ARE nanotechnologies already here. However, they're not being discussed.
Great Expectations and Science
Without any doubt, Barack Obama is an outstanding public speaker, and his speechwriters are equally gifted. . . . Here is a link to his inaugural address: Obama Transcript
One particular passage to pay attention to is this:
"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
A tall order for science. . . . Not only is it going to invent new ways to power our automobiles and industries, but it must return to it's "rightful place." This, to me, seems like an obvious endorsement of science as a form of power or authority. It must, apparently, be elevated beyond its competitors in the creation of knowledge.
Can we really expect so much of science? Should we endow it with so much power?
Compare this vision of science with the one portrayed by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address:
Kennedy Transcript
"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. . . . Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors."
Obviously, he is referencing nuclear weapons as the terror of science. . . . It seems odd that today, when we're likely to rely on science more than ever to address emerging problems, that this level of caution is almost completely absent. We still possess the power to destroy everything that sustains us. And yet, fear of this power has abated after just 45 years.
One particular passage to pay attention to is this:
"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
A tall order for science. . . . Not only is it going to invent new ways to power our automobiles and industries, but it must return to it's "rightful place." This, to me, seems like an obvious endorsement of science as a form of power or authority. It must, apparently, be elevated beyond its competitors in the creation of knowledge.
Can we really expect so much of science? Should we endow it with so much power?
Compare this vision of science with the one portrayed by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address:
Kennedy Transcript
"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. . . . Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors."
Obviously, he is referencing nuclear weapons as the terror of science. . . . It seems odd that today, when we're likely to rely on science more than ever to address emerging problems, that this level of caution is almost completely absent. We still possess the power to destroy everything that sustains us. And yet, fear of this power has abated after just 45 years.
Inactivity to Inspiration
This blog has been inactive for a solid six months, though I can’t say that I have been. . . . And neither has the world.
As I write this, just moments ago, a new president ascended to what is still the most powerful, influential and public office on Earth. Whether any of the serious problems facing our planet can be addressed with a mere administrative change in our government remains unclear to me – if not wholly doubtful. However, it is clear that we are standing at the brink of major changes. Not only is there a fever pitch of human voices calling for change, but the sheer force of history is bringing changes upon us – whether we want them or not.
To me, there is no greater challenge than the energy crisis. Energy, simply, is what feeds and clothes the world. And we are running out of it. . . . At least, we are running out of the easiest sources of it.
Of course, this blog is about nanotechnology. But from here on, there will be a far broader focus. I hope to discuss science policy and philosophy of science here as well. And I hope you will join the discussion.
Once change that seems imminent – stemming almost purely from this administrative change – is that science will receive more funding than in the past. Furthermore, science will be charged with the task of feeding, watering and clothing the world. This is a big task for science. Perhaps the biggest task imaginable. . . . Will the Western world’s faith in science withstand the perils ahead? I cannot say. And will science be able to find new ways to feed, water and clothe the world? I believe so, but probably not to the current extent, or to the extent that most people would want.
The earlier focus of the blog was, basically, that nanotechnology is huge. Certainly, nanotechnology will play a serious role in addressing the problems of this new age. . . . And I hope to document this here.
And as I sit here at the Memorial Center at the University of Colorado, easily 1,000 students have crammed into this room to watch Barack Obama make his inaugural address to the American people. To them. To you. To me.
I’m not completely sure how to feel. But I can say this: As the “Star Spangled Banner” was sung, for perhaps the first time in my life I felt true pride in being an American. Not, necessarily, because of the historic implications of who our new president is – a black American and a left-winger – but because, like it or not, we remain one of the most advanced and most powerful nations on Earth; and as humanity races headlong into the age of these new problems, we will be taking the lead. There is some pride to be taken in that knowledge. But with this pride in our global responsibilities should also come caution. This will be a chaotic age.
Change is coming for me, as well. I am just a few short months away from completing my graduate studies and entering what I believe will be the Wild West era of science writing. More than ever, we will need informed writers and communicators to sift through the bull, and help educate the public. More than ever, science will be at the forefront of policy. And, because of this, people will need to understand science as something more than just a philosophical substitution for faith. Science must be looked at critically. And recognizing that nanotechnology will, indeed, be huge, I hope this can be a bastion of knowledge for everyone interested.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
