Also small things are more efficient than bigger things so going sown to the nanoscale wastes the least energy and is highly efficient So you can really gain a lot from Nanotechnology.What do you Guys think will happen.Bigger is better unless you make it a lot smaller.Nanobots would get their energy by eating molecules from their environment and also be able to not only do things but also make more of themselves. Sort of like bacteria, they can replicate and get their energy by eating molecules or by basking in the sun. Did you know that there are some bacteria that are photosynthetic?at? Like cleaning out blocked arteries or swimming through the ocean eating polluting chemicals. But there are some serious problems in getting them to work. Life is different at the nanoscale. Not only do things not move very easily, but there is also a lot shaking going on. The notion of nanobots was at first a pretty scary thing. What would stop them from taking over the Earth by just making lots and lots of themselves. The closest things that are truly on the nanoscale are little ‘machines’ that are made out of stuff like DNA and move
Nano-technology
Started by
Guest_2bigpigs
, Nov 06 2009 06:47 PM
18 replies to this topic
#1
Guest_2bigpigs
Guest_2bigpigs
-
- Guest
Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:47 PM
Or atleast a way to reach there?Well,We humans have been making machines and tools since when we were humans.Thats what is supposed to make us different from other animals.So we used many substances and methods of making them-From Chipping off Stone pieces to sharpen it to Melting and moulding metals to sharp points in our weapons.Old wooden and animal,Force of nature powered machines and later Coal powered iron and steel machines and now our composite materials and nuclear\electric fuels.Now the Physical properties of the materials we use depends on its molecular make up So with Nanotechnology allowing us to place each atom where we want we can make the most suitable Material for the purpose and also make tiny machines(Nanobots) which can change the tiny molecules to alter it Beneficially like destroying Cancer bit of Cancer cells or Converting a poison to something not bad or Like I have heard,Making them eat up Greenhouse gases to reduce climate change.Nice thing is Nanobots reproduce faster than mosquitoes and they do it all by themselves.Also you can make Nano production lines to produce Nanotools for Bigger objects and whatabout the Ever shrinking computers.If it goes Nano to the 'Single Molecular Switch'Ofcourse whenever you talk about nanotech&Nanobots you talk about 'grey goo' or whatever it was.Where a mistake in the nanobot's program causes it to do something bad to us.In the greenhouse gas situation instead of eating CO2and Methane it eats bigger carbon molecules including all life and self replicate exponentially until they cover the earth in their Greyish bodies and earth becomes as lifeless as .....
#2
Guest_Gaizer_Dragon
Guest_Gaizer_Dragon
-
- Guest
Posted 14 November 2009 - 08:32 AM
I agree, nanotech is more portable, lighter, less energy used.From time to time, things become more smaller like, TV, computer, radio and hand phones.It's a burden to bring a radio along, but if you have an ipod, you can listen anywhere.In the distant future, i think we'll have a lot of nano stuffs.They could even be used in medical field, or even military 
GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - reddeath26
GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - reddeath26
#3
Guest_2bigpigs
Guest_2bigpigs
-
- Guest
Posted 14 November 2009 - 08:17 PM
Oh and i heard that if they were intelligent they could be used in car bodies.To readapt the bodies according to situation cushion a crash or maybe download a body kit update???You know when you go down to that scale you can make things perfect and maybe....teleport.GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - reddeath26Mah GPs Nooo.Ok sorry.I was giving more info to get a post to argue with.Have you seen tutela?
Edited by 2bigpigs, 21 December 2009 - 05:48 PM.
More development is required in the Debates forum. reddeath26
#4
greyscale
-
- Active Member
-
- 47 posts
Egg
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 21 December 2009 - 07:44 AM
i think nonatech will be the future of somethings... nanotech food would be creepy. nanotech clothes? i give the order... and boom! i'm in a tux.GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - kiza19
#5
Guest_Amento
Guest_Amento
-
- Guest
Posted 27 December 2009 - 08:47 AM
Human's greatest enemy is ourselves, and I think nanotechnology is taking it to far. Personally I think this is something that is best left alone, I know it's not going to happen but I'm just sayin' ... When talking about new technology people are just pointing at the wonderful things it can do, but totally forget all the bad things it can be used for. Think of nanotechnology used for bad actions? terrorism or simple crime in daily life? There are so many security measures needed to be taken, and overall theres just a lot more problems than solutions connected to such technology.Think of it, if nanobots were to go all crazy and uncontrollable? Unlikely? Not really, just think of how easy it is to hack a computer nowadays, or how ofter you computer or one of your programs crash.The holy grail to most things? Yes, I believe it is. Does that make it a good thing to reasearch? No, in my opinion.
Edited by Amento, 27 December 2009 - 08:49 AM.
#6
Guest_lixxy
Guest_lixxy
-
- Guest
Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:44 PM
I do think that nan technology is amazing. However I heard the want to use it in the medical field. Injecting us with them to eat bacteria etc. and personally I think its creepy cancer is your body turning on you but imagine them turning on you.GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - reddeath26
#7
Guest_bruevitz
Guest_bruevitz
-
- Guest
Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:58 AM
Hmm, if you're talking about holy grail of technology, I would say its cloning or stem cell technology. 
But we're discussing nanotechnology, aren't we? So...I think nanotechnology has the potential to be a great blessing or great disaster.Having background knowledge of engineering, I know the potential application of nanotechnology is great. Especially in the area of medicine. One would imagine the use of nano robots to kill and destroy bad cells, boosting immune system, revolutionizing the health care system. Despite this I have my doubts.Control, yes. Since we are so big and they are so small, how do one control the usage of such technology? Imagine a new trend of terror, Nanoterrorism....haha, well lets not be a spoil sport.One thing though, I do not think that a self replicating nanomachines is possible. Why? For starters, nanomachines are small (duh 
), I mean their size limits their function, and their memory capability. That means they're limited to do simple tasks.Are we close? Yes, most likely in the next few decades we would be seeing constant increase in real life application for nanotechnology. Within this century definitely.Are we ready? Hard to say, its just like nuclear fission technology.
But we're discussing nanotechnology, aren't we? So...I think nanotechnology has the potential to be a great blessing or great disaster.Having background knowledge of engineering, I know the potential application of nanotechnology is great. Especially in the area of medicine. One would imagine the use of nano robots to kill and destroy bad cells, boosting immune system, revolutionizing the health care system. Despite this I have my doubts.Control, yes. Since we are so big and they are so small, how do one control the usage of such technology? Imagine a new trend of terror, Nanoterrorism....haha, well lets not be a spoil sport.One thing though, I do not think that a self replicating nanomachines is possible. Why? For starters, nanomachines are small (duh ), I mean their size limits their function, and their memory capability. That means they're limited to do simple tasks.Are we close? Yes, most likely in the next few decades we would be seeing constant increase in real life application for nanotechnology. Within this century definitely.Are we ready? Hard to say, its just like nuclear fission technology.
#8
Guest_2bigpigs
Guest_2bigpigs
-
- Guest
Posted 13 January 2010 - 08:15 PM
Don't you think nano technology can provide a bit more in different parts of medecine where stem cells and cloning can't do much?What use is cloning?Hmm, if you're talking about holy grail of technology, I would say its cloning or stem cell technology.
But we're discussing nanotechnology, aren't we? So...
Well yes but being a bit more precise would help me argue with you.Anyway you know the endoscope exists and a laser can be used here and there so combine both into a nanomachine and poof.(Damn this is stupid.Lasers eat up too much energy for going so nano and not enough energy)I think nanotechnology has the potential to be a great blessing or great disaster.Having background knowledge of engineering, I know the potential application of nanotechnology is great. Especially in the area of medicine. One would imagine the use of nano robots to kill and destroy bad cells, boosting immune system, revolutionizing the health care system. Despite this I have my doubts.
Well the self replicating.Maybe not but we can have nano factories which churn them out at a rate of 10000s per minute or more.Or we could design an insect sort of system wit ha queen and workers and the excess bots doing the job we assign them.Control, yes. Since we are so big and they are so small, how do one control the usage of such technology? Imagine a new trend of terror, Nanoterrorism....haha, well lets not be a spoil sport.One thing though, I do not think that a self replicating nanomachines is possible. Why? For starters, nanomachines are small (duh
), I mean their size limits their function, and their memory capability. That means they're limited to do simple tasks.Are we close? Yes, most likely in the next few decades we would be seeing constant increase in real life application for nanotechnology. Within this century definitely.Are we ready? Hard to say, its just like nuclear fission technology.
#9
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:38 PM
Like any other technology, nanotech (which by the way, is an extremely broad and vague term) is most certainly a double-edged sword as others have said, moreso than any other advancements we have made as a people IMO. Sure, with molecular nanotechnology we could build literally anything that obeys the laws of nature, but the flip side of that is; think about what could happen if someone with malicious intent had the means to create biological weapons with nanotech. It would be almost literally impossible to detect (for the time being anyway) and millions could be killed without warning. And for the more paranoid people out there, microscopic cameras and chips could be implanted into cities/buildings, houses, even people to monitor activities. And not just by governments, I'm talking corporations here. Sounds crazy, I know, but so does the fact that many of our genes, the things that makes us us, are patented. I for one find that extremely unsettling. Also, working with nanotech can apparently pose some serious health risks. (link 2)I think it's great that humans are actually at the point where we're basically a sci-fi series come to life. I mean, we have laser weapons, microscopic robots, self-replicating machines, and even teleportation (VERY early stages) now. We're even working on a feasible way to manufacture dark matter (which is extraordinarily powerful in even the smallest of quantities, yet another thing to worry about if combined with nanotech). All of this just worries me that somewhere down the line, possibly even in our lifetimes, that this technology is going to be put to use, and not for the supposed greater good. Of course, this is coming from someone who doesn't trust governments on any level or people in general.I hate referencing wikipedia but here's a piece on the Smalley-Drexler debate that some (read: very few) may find interesting. (link)Yeah, I went off-topic, I know. But as someone who follows these things rather closely, I just find the whole subject of "future" technologies to be equally exciting and unnerving.EDIT: On the subject of the whole "nanomachines going crazy and taking over" thing; that's extremely unlikely. For one thing machines don't think like we do nor do they 'evolve' beyond the scope of their programming, unless you count random data rot and code error as some sort of "mechanical microevolution."Of course, with all the recent advancements in AI, who really knows for sure. But I highly doubt we'd be looking at a Terminator scenario.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#10
Guest_2bigpigs
Guest_2bigpigs
-
- Guest
Posted 15 January 2010 - 07:59 PM
Well I had a good post developed then i discovered i was suspended so i'll quickly reconstruct it.
The situation is called gray goo.The most popular scenario being That Nanobots designed to eat up and destroy certain organic compounds such as oil from an oilspill or CO2 or methane to combat Global warming have a programming error and start eating all organic compounds and making copies of themselves (as was mentioned to be highly unlikely in a bruevitz's post).So the whole earth is covered in their gray bodies and it looks like Gray goo.On the subject of the whole "nanomachines going crazy and taking over" thing; that's extremely unlikely. For one thing machines don't think like we do nor do they 'evolve' beyond the scope of their programming, unless you count random data rot and code error as some sort of "mechanical microevolution."
#11
Guest_bruevitz
Guest_bruevitz
-
- Guest
Posted 18 January 2010 - 12:16 PM
Well of course they can, even more. But in the area of medicine I think cloning or stem cell can provide more. For instance, combined with gene therapy/manipulation, we can treat patients that suffers from defected organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc).Unlike cloning/stem cell research, however, the application of nano machines stretches beyond medicine. One good example is to create nano machines that can help clean pollutions.Don't you think nano technology can provide a bit more in different parts of medecine where stem cells and cloning can't do much?What use is cloning?
Well that is what they do, they equip them with low powered lasers and use them in numbers to kill of cancer cells.Well yes but being a bit more precise would help me argue with you.Anyway you know the endoscope exists and a laser can be used here and there so combine both into a nanomachine and poof.(Damn this is stupid.Lasers eat up too much energy for going so nano and not enough energy)
Yea, one would wonder why we want to create autonomous self-replicating nano machines. But since u mentioned it, yes, it is possible, but it wont be a nano factories (not the size though).Ever wondered how big the area needed to produce 10000 piece of paper a min? A rain forest (raw resource), men + equipments + lodgings +meal (energy source), and processing plant = paper. And that is just paper, how about furniture? Hope u can imagine how big it is the factory gonna be compared to the final product.Well the self replicating.Maybe not but we can have nano factories which churn them out at a rate of 10000s per minute or more.Or we could design an insect sort of system wit ha queen and workers and the excess bots doing the job we assign them.
#12
Guest_2bigpigs
Guest_2bigpigs
-
- Guest
Posted 19 January 2010 - 07:00 PM
I saw this fellow with a machine on his table which produced micro machine parts at near a 100 per minute so i would think that my house is big enough to achieve it.Also if the ycould control the factories and make more of them (the bee colony method) We may get somewhere.At present it is hard to imagine as they have some trouble with constructing things at the nano scale.But with the (ohh i can't remember the word.That method of sculpting down and etching a piece of nanostuff rather than building it layer by layer.)With that method we may be able to get a large batch taking myabe ten minutes to be made.All controlled by micro machines.Is it possible to make chemical reactions (or somehow) make lots of nanotubes at a time.Now that should be easy and after that we could have a large factory(As you mentioned) assembling them as required.Sorry for my low quality posts.It's almost time for bed.
#13
Guest_Light_Of_Darkness
Guest_Light_Of_Darkness
-
- Guest
Posted 24 January 2010 - 03:21 AM
I think nanotechnology would be nice, but nanotechnology and nanobots are two different things.Having a computer desktop the size of two iPods would be awesome, but for curing cancer and all that, I would much rather have that money be used to research steam cells.But just think of this. Nanobots that can create different (working) objects.For instance, you need a robot arm? Program the nanobots to join together in a specific form and pattern and poof, you have a robot arm.
#15
Guest_jjws
Guest_jjws
-
- Guest
Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:08 PM
i think Nanotechnology can indeed be either a blessing or a curse.It can be a blessing since nanobots can do things and reach places which bigger robots or even humans can't do or reach but they will not be too effective on its own, it would probably work well in combination with robots and humans all together so they can each do tasks featuring their own size.Like for example in building a computer:The nanobots could program all the chips, the robots could put them all on the right boards(like they do nowadays) and the humans could put it all together.It can however also be a curse if we use them for everything. Because if you use nanobots for evertyhing and some hacker or terrorist somehow gets a virus in it or manages to destroy their mainframe it could cause total destruction since no one can then control them anymoreMy conclusion is that nanotechnology is a good thing to do and will probably be done in the near future but if we use it too much or even for everything it just becomes way too dangerous to use and if something happens to it it will probably destroy itself after causing an unknown destruction.This might sound pessimistic 
but actually if you look at it well if we use it too much there will probably be about 80-90% chance something goes wrong on small or large scale.
but actually if you look at it well if we use it too much there will probably be about 80-90% chance something goes wrong on small or large scale.
#16
mega mop
-
- Member
-
- 4 posts
Egg
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 17 August 2010 - 12:12 AM
No, though nano technology can be a very effective tool that could help humanity have you ever considered how it could destroy humanity? Just think about it, if nano technology were used as a militaristic weapon it could actually be more devastating than the atom bomb. Just think of how the scale of power could tilt in anyone's favor who has these "nano weapons". Then again the fear of starting a WW3 could prevent us from using these weapons and then nano technology could be our salvation. But we as humans aren't ready for this yet, the risk of it being used for selfish gain is too great.
Edited by mega mop, 17 August 2010 - 12:16 AM.
#17
namragog
-
- Member
-
- 20 posts
Egg
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:24 PM
i agree. nanotechnology? NOT a good thing, especially beacuse of the warfare thing. It would destroy the entire population of earth! so what if it is good for healthcare and healing? we would all die anyways!GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - Kim Jong Il
#18
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 19 August 2010 - 04:19 AM
Just because something can be used for "bad" things, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. By that logic, certain medicines shouldn't exist because of the potential health risks they impose.Nanotechnology, Picotechnology, or any other technology isn't capable of destroying anything, it's people who decide how these techs are going to be used. Should we destroy every gun and knife on the planet just because some use them for cold-blooded murder? Should we ban MMORPGs because a handful of South Koreans allowed their children to starve to death in order to level up their elf paladin? Should we destroy every Marijuana plant because of the ill-founded 'gateway drug' theory?i agree. nanotechnology? NOT a good thing, especially beacuse of the warfare thing. It would destroy the entire population of earth! so what if it is good for healthcare and healing? we would all die anyways!
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#19
Guest_radiusn
Guest_radiusn
-
- Guest
Posted 11 March 2011 - 08:18 AM
I do'nt think nanotechnology will be the enough for our species in next century, as in our experience said, people want better thing, and maybe in the future, we will not only depend on "engineering" atom, but maybe we will go further with sub-atomic particle, such as proton and neutron or maybe even smaller particle that nowadays exist only in laboratory.
