@rottenseed NANOTECH

Science fiction can justify anything because almost anything IS possible. Suspension of disbelief plays too much into our own environment and timeline -- think about your own life as a stage play 400 years ago and MAYBE you'll consider suspending it a bit more.

His hands glow when he touches a mobile device, so for crying out loud, maybe he has extra signals planted in his brain (via nanotech) to provide additional motor control via WiFi, thus steering the motorcycle with one hand. I just listened to a PhD in bioengineering at Wonder Con say that the idea of creating new signals in the brain for additional limb control is not so far fetched. ("Science in Science Fiction" panel by the authors of this book.)

However, lack of exposition in any shape or form does not work for me -- it's just fantasy at that point. I don't need to be eviscerated by constant exposition, but I need to at least know the ground rules. I felt like this was a subpar combination of Advent Children, the T2 motorcycle chase scene and every Half Life chase scene. More stimulation for my brains PLZ.

(On a side note: BUT! it was good fun and was made to display technical skill, not simply to be judged by a group of non-industry laymen, so upvote because the team who made this has TALENT.)

sooner or later, as we break new grounds with stuff like nanotech and AI, we're gonna have to set some rules. dangers are real. but when has that ever stopped us from playing god:P

>> ^messenger:

People aren't looking up into the vastness anymore, but we're still dreaming. Only now, our dreams are in the smallest places we can look, nanotechnology. That's where our next future is coming from, not the moon. People have always dreamed, since long before NASA, and will continue to do so, even if we don't have a multi-billion-dollar telescope looking into the past. Aristochines didn't need NASA to dream, and neither do we. I have no real opinion about NASA, but Neil's argument is flawed. He tends towards flawed arguments frequently for such a prominent scientist, mostly when he's trying to sell NASA to the public.


We still need space. Quite apart from all the stuff we still need to learn about the universe out there, we need resources - energy, materials and room to expand.

We'll also need another home planet because you can guarantee if there's a way humanity could fuck nanotech up, it will. Accidentally or deliberately.

This stuff cracks me up.

Scientific advancement in computing tech, nanotech, quantum mechanics, air and space flight, genetic engineering, new medicines, ag science...

But, put a remote control in someone's underwear, and they're cheering.

(The loudest, coming from the guy gettin' his cowboy on, are clearly the result of realizing he's getting to see some at a fashion show his wife dragged him to. "Yeehaw, couldn't talk the wife into the titty bar but this'll do!")

I have been pouring over the link you have here MH for about 30 minutes and keep having to slap myself to remind myself I am still awake...This shit is incredible-It reminds me how close we are to the next big one...i.e. as when we split the atom-
What we are seeing is the threshold of what will make nanotech as much a part of our lives in the very, very, near future as automobiles are to highways.

"irrational nuclear fears" I got em.... kinna shell-shocked from our progress to date with arcane applications-Solar is getting easier to mass produce, but not half as fast as the barons, sheiks, coveters and inbreds that have been more concerned with empire than having us all taken care of.....mother nature is on a righteous path though, she may trump all the pitiful efforts of humans-This guy Analog in a digital world does not empress..not half as much as the cat on the TED talk soberly proposing scenarios that will make us all the bitches of robotics and nanotech.

No fusion is not "IS" energy's future...it MAY be

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Uh oh Psychologic... You're daring to bring the taboos of logic, common sense, and reason into this discussion. That's going to get you labeled as a neocon. Get ready for it - because the neolibs won't stand for your simple, correct assessment of the world's capacity to generate resources.

One of the fundamentaal premises of the kook neolib left fringe is that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion. Look at this thread. It is filled to the brim with literal idiots who are talking all kinds of bull about stuff they know absolutely nothing about except what has been spoon-fed them by equally ignorant professors and media hacks. Check out this glittering example...

"Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can get..."

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not only does this dingus believe that he knows what number of humams should/shouldn't be born, he also believes he knows what the Earth's 'ideal' population should be. Based on what math? None of course. It's just his opinion.

The neolib left is chock full of these kinds of psuedo-intellectual dipsticks. They go around spouting complete nonsense on topics they know sod-all about and perpetuate fallacies that any person with two gangelon to rub together can see are patently false at face value. But they LOVE this particular left-wing piece of idiocy (overpopulation) because it lets them engage in their favorite pasttime... Making stupid laws to take away freedom, control people, and limit happiness & prosperity based on junk science treated as 'fact' through no other virtue than faith and the psychological makeup of a lemming.

Late to the party but oh well.

Lets see: You bash "the kook neolib left fringe" for their baseless assumptions that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion, yet you take Psychologic's statement that "we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone" as gospel. Hmmm. Hypocrisy says hi!

Also, I love how you take Psychologic's assessment that "Infrastructure is the problem" and "The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor." as "logic, common sense, and reason". Funny. I don't see any logic there considering the fact that "Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs" doesn't automatically exclude population as a significant contributor to famine. War = famine, therefore high population not = famine. Amazing logical inference there.

Hmmm. Perhaps when you say "logic, common sense, and reason", you're talking about Psychologic's claim that "Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too)."

What a prediction! The man must be a psychic or something! He knows in his heart that this "nanotech" thingy will be our salvation! What a brilliant scientific conclusion.

Seriously though, Psychologic's post is as full of bullshit as the posts that preceded it. It just happens to be your preferred flavor of bullshit. But hey, lets stick to the topic at hand here. I wouldn't want to bring something irrelevant such as politics into a discussion about population growth. Oh wait, you beat me to it.

And may I commend you on that wonderfully written diatribe against neolibs. It was definitely not full of your own opinion, and was instead nicely supported by facts, statistics, and science. I especially like the part where you called varietube a "dingus". I'd say something like "childish insults score no points here", but you already mentioned that yourself in your post to varietube below this.

Let me remind you of a quote of yours: "I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value."

If your vitriolic rhetoric against neolibs wasn't inflammatory, then I don't know what is. You might want to start practicing what you preach. Unless of course, you feel like it's your duty to counterbalance all the "liberal idiots" on videosift with your own brand of shit.

I think the focus on population is the fallacy of the argument (either side). If you're talking about the total number of people and the total amount of resources available then we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone.

The problem is infrastructure. Just because the planet has everything we need doesn't mean that we can get it to everyone who needs it. Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs (including safety) can all prevent delivery of needed supplies. It's difficult to move products around when you're being shot at, for instance. The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor.

Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too). Such advances will also reduce the need for "dirty" forms of energy like coal and oil.

Most projections I've seen show the total population of Earth leveling off... the specific dates aren't as important as the general trend. Either way, the number of humans alive is not the reason people are starving.

>> ^vairetube:
here's to stem cells and nanotech eventually biting a big chunk out of cancer's ass and spitting it in cancer's face. fucking son of a bitch cancer.

Seconded.

hehe payback on the razors edge! true enough so far . though bernie mac was the man too.

seemed like a pleasant and focused invididual. extra sad to have recurrence take him... so fucking cruel to destroy everything regained.. ug.

here's to stem cells and nanotech eventually biting a big chunk out of cancer's ass and spitting it in cancer's face. fucking son of a bitch cancer.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."
Then he goes on (in the second and third parts of the series) to describe how to create an "elite race" by not letting un-intelligent people breed. That kind of social-darwinism is just flat out wrong.
ALSO since when is cranium circumferance the measure of intelligence???


Cranium size: He never says that it is a "measure" of intelligence, he says there is a correlation. Hawkins said the same thing, noting that human intelligence has been evolutionarily limited by the maximum head size that can fit through the birth canal. Large heads don't make people smart, but they do allow for larger brains and the possibility of higher intelligence.

Elite Race: unfortunately youtube won't let me load the 3rd part, so I can only comment on the part I've seen and what you said about it. What he wants to happen will happen, but for completely different reasons and through completely different methods.

Nanotech will soon (be it 20 years or 50) let us increase the mental capacity of any given person. We can already change a living person's dna, and that will only get easier. There will be no reason to selectively breed people since we will have direct control over dna (plus, people would never accept forced sterilization). I like the quote from Ray Kurzweil: "we will not only have designer babies, but designer baby-boomers".

Take your pick on who to believe as far as when that will happen, but chances are it will be within your lifetime.

There are many game changing technological advances that are much closer on the horizon than settling mars (stem cells, genetics, nanotech, etc).

In the long run, never bet against nanotech.

The current problems in the world are insignificant in the long run.

We thought we were righteous in the 20th century for resisting the human sciences, but in the next couple of decades reprogenetics and regenerative medicine (stem cells) are going to begin fundamentally changing the human condition in favor of greater equality, personal choice, and freedom from disease.

Cheaper energy from advances in nanotech and solar power is set to arrive within 10 or 20 years.

Etc. Etc.