You are not logged in.
They've had micro-assemblers which they call convergent assembly for a few years now. Their idea is the Richard Feynman top-down path towards molecular assemblers which means they are on course to have molecular assemblers around 2015-2020.
beat me to it; i had recently made an observation that the reason why the japanese economy went down was because they didn't have the scientific and technological research to keep them above malthus's law's which is what has kept us from falling for hundreds of years now.
I've known about molecular nanotechnology for awhile now. I first saw Drexlers "Engines of Creation" around 1988, but at the time, I did not understand it; i didn't buy it and read it till a year or two later. Drexlerian nanotech is an idea that was first thought of a few times before with Richard Feynman and Robert Heinland. Still, Drexler did the most when he thought of it in the nineteen seventies. With only a few published articles, one in 1981, a few others in 1989, one book in 1986 and a Britanica article; Drexlerian nanotech started out pretty small and slow moving. After the first foresight conference, thing's started speeding up. After the first foresight conference in 89, Drexler came out with "NanoSystems", and a year or two after that the first university course was taught with nanosystems. Foresight held their first few conferences every other year. By the end of the nineties, not only the Foresight institute was holding conferences every year, but there were a few other nanotech conferences being held yearly. The Foresight Institute website used to keep track of what countries visited their website; it was pretty hard to find one country that wasn't; there were countries you've never heard of visiting the website. Clinton in his last years started a two hundred million dollar nanotech initiative. When the U.S. did that, china put up even more. When china put in more, the U.S. duplicated. When George Bush Jr became president, the new energy source people were running for their lives; now, President Bush has hiked up the Clinton nanotech initiative to seven hundred million dollars. Every countries government's have put their money into nanotech. All the research corporations are putting their money into nanotech. Every research university now has a nanotech building. The U.S. has doubled the national science foundation money. With the terrorist attacks, nations put even more money into science and technology. It's almost like religion; try to strike technological civilization down, and it put's even more resources into science and technology; in other words, industrial civilization's real faith is in science and technology no matter what religion is dominant in which particular country. Environmental groups? A deaf ear is turned(not that nanotech can't actually be a good thing for the country; in fact, that's what the governments of the world tell the environmental interest groups when they try to shut down this explosive nanotech growth. Now, most of this money is going to top-down nanotech, which means that bare minimum, drexlerian bottom up nanotech arrives before twenty-twenty, but one thing is for sure, civilization is going to do everything in its power to keep the cancerous anti-industrial civilization people from bringing it down, not to mention everything in its power to keep the environment from collapsing before humanity has become almost completelly technologized. As I've indicated elsewhere here, the reason civilization has overcome Malthus's exponential growth is because of science and technological growth allowing us to grow ever bigger. Ultimaitelly, I think humanity has gotten on a runaway effect towards the stars and humanity surviving adolescence. It's hard to believe without seeing all these insights, but humanity will be one of the few intelligent species to reach the stars; i wonder how many others will make it?
http://nanotech-now.com/chris-phoenix-a … 71502.htm#
I personally like Japan to let loose the new-age sputnik; europe has to many conflicting contries to pull everyone's desires in the right direction; china is not as productive as japan; the u.s.a has to many christians(sorry; don't know how else to put it).
read the stories linked to in the message thread that I've linked to in this thread.
http://uplink.space.com/2....3089316
I forgot what amount of lift we needed for mars direct? I don't have access to my Zubrin book right now, sorry.
On your right margins is the article about an australian scramjet,
On the left margins in "Dragon Space" which has an article saying the Chinese might launch Shenzue 4 sometime this september
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02o.html
Also note a link to a scramjet article on the sides!
in fact, the number of experts needed to run the show should give an indication of how many people should be in a group.
There was a time when democracy wasn't trusted either. I guess I should tell you the story about Kurt Godel while I'm at it. Einstein had trouble getting him to come over to the states because Godel proved that a dictatorship can come about in a democracy. By making it a team, a collective, where nobody is really in charge, just everybody doing their part of the survival game, then nobody get's to be in total control.
have you read my stuff elsewhere? The scientists can only say thing's involved in their field of specialty.
Consider this, do you see Greenspan abusing his power?
as someone said on these boards, most of the martians will be scientists anyway's, so democracy won't turn into a crazed out process like here.
Mars will be politically dependant on earth for some time to come. No matter by me, the future will come if mankind establishes themselves on mars; from there, mankind will spread throughout the solar system like fireflies. Out in space, science reigns supreme which is probably why the politicians tryed their darndest to stop the possibility, or at least to keep it from happening in their lifetimes.
You are not a former military person are you. It isn't that bad, so long as those in charge have a good understanding of the mission. Instead of the militaries military mission, I'm proposing the mission be scientific and humanistic. Besides that, the person in power can't do anything untill it is scientifically proven. Not only that, but there can be many scientific groups just like there are today for each different scientific activity.
I could just as easily charge democracy of destroying the minority viewpoint. I personally don't want to be thrown off the cliff by the blindness of the majority.
That is obviously a lot of technical discussion, but untill you or someone else comes up with a technical reason why not to take into consideration these various points, then I think we take them seriously.
I've basically reread Isaac Asimov's "Extraterrestrial Civilizations" since the idea that earth's and hence extraterrestrial civilizations might be rare has been popularized recently in a book titled "Rare Earth", which I have yet to read. Still, I know most of the big thing's said in "Rare Earth". After rereading I. Asimov's book which was published in 1979 by the way, I find he hit's on all points covered by the new book "Rare Earth" except that jovian size planet's might get dragged in by friction with the protoplanetary disk dust. I. Asimov also mentions the oddness of the moon but could not find what that oddness could mean for E.T. civilizations. At that point he had shaved down the possible E.T.'s down into the 1.6 million point. Then he shaves it down to 500K because of the possibility of nuclear war. Because he doesn't know about the jovian planet's problem and that the recent amount of jovian planet's found around or nearer the parent star than the earth's distance, I took 90% of that 1.6 and got about 100K possible civilizations without taking into account the moon problem(that really takes a lot out doens't it!). Even assuming an unfair half instead of another 90 percent of the 100K, taking half of 100K for the possible civilizations that destroy themselves by nuclear war leaves only 50K. Not to bad, but consider the more probable taking 90 percent of a 100K because of the improbability of the moon. That is only 1K left. Take half of that for civilizations destroying themselves by nuclear war leaves 500. I'd like to bring in a new factor: having a mars planet to ignite phase two civilization. Now, some of those 500 E.T's could end up with a mars instead of a moon as their double planet system. I'm jealous of them! Still, most will have to contend with a moon instead which means as Zubrin has pointed out that they will have to find another planet rich in carbon's to ignite phase two civilization. But what is the probability of having another mars? Let's take another 90% as a worst case scenario. That leaves us with ~50 possible E.T.'s out there.
Amazing! We've gone from thinking there had to be zillions of them because there were so many stars out there, to wondering if we'd be the only one's. Fifty isn't to bad. Seti is still worth the trouble.
Of course, just like I've said; when push comes to shove, the scientist will have the final say anyway's. Just look at the white house today. When George Bush Jr went into office, all the alternate fuel people ran for their lives. Pretty soon, the economy went downward; bush had to bring in a stimulous package, and with the rest of the world investing their economies into nanotechnology, George Bush Jr had to raise the national science foundation money for each and every succeeding year and increased the nanotech initiative introduced from President Clinton almost to a billion. However it happens is fine by me, so long as humanity doesn't destroy themselves, but then again that requires a real scientific understanding of humanity and the universe: not likelly in the white house.
I've come to think that my idea's are equivalent to my point elsewhere civilization has made an irreversible decision towards science and technology. That our civilization is totally dependant on the continued growth of science and technology to keep it going; otherwise, industrialism would have succumbed to malthusian prediction a long time ago.
I suppose if it makes some happy to think of it as democracy first, and science second; no matter with me!
You missed a few quotes, or points to be made.
I'm affraid I have school to do; i'll certainly get back to you when I can.
Looks like clark came in just when I was replying. In responce to clark, one way of determining what's right for survival is to go out and survive. If there are multiple way's of doing so then yes, of course, you can either vote, or the possibility is that each idea can be done at the same time. Certainly, two different people's style of pottery are different, but that is not something to worry about.
Survival is your incentive. You bring up exactly what money is; a social control and nothing more. The problem with those who think money is necessary because of 'incentive' is that money is not necessary. The only reason any money mongers can get anybody to believe that is because those who are convinced of it are not educated enough to survive alone. Survival alone is possible, at least on mother earth. Out in space including an unterraformed mars on the other hand will not be possible to survive alone, at least not without molecular nanotechnology. However, out in space, science and technology is so required for survival at all that voting on the incompetent versus the competent is like playing russian roulette(not that doing so on mother earth isn't; it's just a matter of degree). Out there, we're going to need somebody who know's what the freak they're doing.
Considering some of the posts I've seen latelly, I see that some people just don't see the big picture, at least the way I do. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again, maybe they are? I was tempted to remark that scientist seem to figure out who's competent and who's not; oops, looks like I let that one out. Still, the problem I'm seeing that you are refering to is recognizing the same understanding, or philosophy, or the human condition. If we could all understand the central role of science and technology in the human condition, then I don't see the problem with what I'm proposing, but not everyone sees that as I've seen on these messageboards since I've gotten here a week ago. In my experience, those who don't understand will never understand.
I'll leave with the point that I wouldn't be surprised if science is a dominating fact of life out in space. Out in space, a scientific understanding of every aspect of life is required. Purhaps this is the reason why some want terraforming: to create another mother earth to take care of all the little things so that we don't have to know everything scientifically.
Well, that is exciting to hear. I'd love to know where you read that, but then again, I'd like to refind where I read the china no longer views the moon as the top priority; sure, they're interested, but it now seems they think the moon secondary for some reason.
If I recall correctly, the first star trek movie was written by none other than Isaac Asimov. The first star trek movie was indeed the best movie of that series. I'm much more of an original series fan than the new generaltion and whatever else they have going nowaday's, but even then, I find the later star treks getting out of hand.
As for robot's treating us better than humans treat each other, that idea also goes to Isaac Asimov, in his law's robots. His laws of robots are so influencial. I've seen them in the "Forbidden Planet" movie with robbie the robot, and Robocop, and who know's where else.
I could be misspelling his name, if that is what your refering to. Sorry, if I affended anybodies sensabilities, but I for one don't mind people making mistakes if I can understand them perfectly well. I can tell the difference between making a misstake on purpose for teasing purposes and making perfectly innocent mistakes.
Anyway's, an O'Neile colony is a completely human creation. It is an overblown space station if you get my meaning. I do believe Mr. Zubrin has a picture of the insides of one in his "Entering Space" book. If you've seen Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, or if you want to see an example of an O'Neile colony, see 2001! In the befinning after the monkey's part, you'll see a whole bunch of spacecraft. Eventually, you focus in on one jetplane looking spacecraft which has a few seens with the lady walking gently and upside down and stuff. The jetspaceship then is shown going into a incompletelly built spacestation. Essentially, this is what an O'Neile space colony looks like, only O'Neile space colonies would be much bigger with ecologies in them. Hope this helps.
I just checked around where I read about chinese heavy lift rockets. They aparently will only use twenty ton heavy lift rockets. Zubrin suggests forty ton rockets. Then again, maybe they are just going to do it differently.