No.:p

Nah, I am not a 'for' nanotechnology, mainly because they want it to reach a point in which it can, supposedly, have tiny little bitty robots inside your body etc (SCi-FI?) and thats just wrong.

I don't mind it as it is, but its what they feel might be future capable.

That's what many scientists are doing now, and some are getting ecently close, but your otehr parts of your post are again right, different changes and other changes which only make them look like a different, normal cell are all problems. we're working on it, but it will still be a long time, i think.

Why?


You have trillions of bacteria inside your body. They are tiny little bitty creatures.
Such creatures can be cultivated to do whatever you want them to do, really. They just do their job, but often they don't do it very well.
Nanotechnology is exactly the same, except those tiny little bitty robots can do their job much better and much more safely.

It's like using a car for transport, rather than a horse.

First off, who is the "they" that want little tiny robots inside everyone? That is most definitely science fiction.

Nanotechnology encompasses a whole range of technologies. Basically, it is defined as "any structure created at the nanometer range", which obviously is a pretty vague definition. Every time you use your computer you are using nanotechnology. Same with every time you wear sunscreen. Or whenever you buy a computer part that comes in one of those static-shielded bags.

A lot of people are worried that so-called "replicators" will be programmed badly and will basically convert the entire Earth into more replicators. However, there is no reason to think that would ever happen. This planet has been covered with self-replicating nanomachines for at least the last three billion years. Also, there is a very interesting article written by Eric Drexler that you should look at. Basically it talks about how self-replicating machines would be a very inefficient way to do macro-scale contruction, and instead advocates a "nanofactory" in which things would be constructed first by nanomachines, then put together by larger and larger robots until a human-scale device/structure emerges (hence the term "exponential manufacturing".

As for the "nanobugs in your bloodstream" that you are worried about, would that really be so bad? A DNA-based "nanobot" has already been constructed that attacks cancer cells without hurting normal cells. It's quite interesting as well, you can read the news story here.

Nanotech is cool.

Surely that'd still take an incredibly long time, having to build something particle-by-particle?

Not when it's made of a small amount of particles.

[Edit: "It's" = the product.]

No, the point of exponential manufacturing is that you have trillions of nanoscale devices assembling components, then handing the components down to billions of microscale devices, which assemble them into something larger, then they give the larger components to millions of milli-scale devices, which put them together and then hand them down to thousands of larger devices, and then depending on the size of the final product you could have the parts handed to some larger robotic arms (if it was a car or something), and you might even add a level or two after that (although in practise it would probably be cheaper to get humans to assemble the parts once they got large enough.

So yes, it would take a long time to construct something atom-by-atom, but it doesn't matter because there will be very large numbers of tiny robots working on the same thing at the same time.

'They' are obviously references to little green aliens!

but more seriously i'm not well enough informed to make a call on nanotechnology, but if it does get to a point where it gets too superior then something could go wrong and were all screwed and I mean the tiny robot version scientists try to build not the sun cream rubbish.

DMC: Did you read the article (it's in my post a bit up the page)? You should, it's really informative.

Has anyone read Michael Crichton's Prey? Yarr.

Cancerous growths are caused by a mutation in the cell. I forget the exact name, but there is a strand of DNA that determines how long a cell will live, and each time the cell reproduces, that strand is cut in half. Cancer mutates that, and causes it to replicate out of control. However, the cell never dies, that strand never diminishes. That's all the info I have, courtesy my Biology teacher.

Your concerns are caused by your misinformation. Which in turn is caused by the ignorance of journalists and Prince Charles alike.
Nanotechnology is no more dangerous or potentially dangerous than any other technology. It's just smaller. You're not afraid of the huge robots that are used to assemble cars. Nanotechnology is exactly the same, except much simpler and much smaller (and in greater numbers).
Kyle's posts outline the tremendous advantages that are made by nanotechnology.

And suncream is by no means "rubbish", it is nanotechnology at its best, and it saves you from skin cancer.

I tried to but the link wouldn't work for me, I did read the news article you posted.