skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Soft Machines is one of my favorite nanotechnology blogs -- lucid, balanced and informed. Richard Jones's latest is a two-part article on the history of nanotechnology and the social interests that are propelling it.The first part focuses on where nanotechnology has come from. The second looks at the social issues and groups that are affecting where it's going.What particularly impressed me was Jone's recognition that science in general and nanotechnology in particular serve as a mirror for social and cultural fears and aspirations. Technologies don’t exist or develop in a vacuum, and nanotechnology is no exception; arguments about the likely, or indeed desirable, trajectory of the technology are as much about their protagonists’ broader aspirations for society as about nanotechnology itself.
At Nanodot Christine Peterson briefly raises the issue of advanced software and its implications for nanotechnology. She rightly points out that nanotechnology with real molecules is difficult and expensive. The alternative is computer simulations.Right now though even the most powerful computers are struggling to fold proteins -- the complexities of nanotechnology highlight the leap we are going to need in computing power in order to accurately model nanotech.In her post Ms. Peterson refers to AI and the Singularity Summit, but there is no reason that AI has to be part of the ability to model nanotechnology. Perhaps the most promising means of bringing computing power to the necessary level doesn't involve AI: quantum computing.Quantum computing is spooky stuff -- using the quantum features like superposition and entanglement to do computations that are impossible any other way. Quantum computing is farther along than most people think; D-Wave, the worlds first private quantum computing company is alive and well in British Columbia and they are well aware of how their work could accelerate nanotechnology in powerful ways.
