61–62 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that the case against Drexler’s concept does not collapse because of this one mistake.
Right, which I already acknowledged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but the human engineering you are looking for is mostly called biotech. I think the argument is that there just isn’t a novel field here. Drexler tried to carve one out where none exists to make himself and his followers look like they invented something when they did not. Nanotech is really just gloss on biology, materials engineering, or chemistry, all of which are well aware of quantum scale effects and use t…
Biology has a pretty limited set of building blocks to work with. Drexler specifically wanted assemblers that could work with aluminum and that could do some extra stuff with carbon that biology can't do.
Not that small: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Periodic-representations...
Proteins can bind and use all kinds of other elements and the combinatorial space is enormous.