Ray Kurzweil says...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chuck_k @ May 2 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]434279[/snapback]</div>

He is a technocrat for sure but does he know anything about ecology, psychology and biological systems?

He doesn't give any workable scenarios and just talks about exponential techonology. Techology has argueably never made anything better when fixed to an exponetially growing population so more technology is going to save us? Most ecologists would say no. Until population grow drops to zero we will remain in danger of colapse. Once population rates are down technology can definately help but until then technology seems to just add to the population problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chuck_k @ May 2 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]434279[/snapback]</div>

So...his argument is that Gore's slides don't account for technology that doesn't exist, i.e., global warming will be solved by vaporware.

It would be rosy to believe him, but all I can think of is how atomic energy was going to provide for everything energy need in the science fiction written when I was growing up...

Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061402086.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ May 2 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]434324[/snapback]</div>

Nanotechnology is extremely scary stuff. The health and biological effects are not known in the vast majority of current uses and research. This is yet another realm of science technology where we leap before we think about the consequences. We will see major trouble due to this techonolgy trust me. Ohh sure some good will come out of it but at what expense?



Of this money spent on research I believe only 1% was spent on researching it's biological (harmful effects)

Source:

"Chapter 5: Shrinking Science: An Introduction to Nanotechnology

Hope Shand and Kathy Jo Wetter

Nanotechnology—the manipulation of matter on the scale of atoms and molecules—is booming, and it has the potential to alter or completely transform the current state of the art in every major industrial sector. (See Table 5-1, p. 79.) Nanotech offers the potential to develop stronger, lighter materials, low cost solar cells and sensors, faster computers with more memory capacity, filters for cleaning contaminated water, cancer killing molecules, and more. (See Box 5-1, p. 81.)

These small wonders will have colossal impacts, but not all of them will be welcome. The effects of manufactured nanoscale particles on human health and the environment are unknown and unpredictable, though hundreds of products containing nanoparticles are already on the market. In the longer term, but still in the near future, nanotech’s new designer materials could topple commodity markets, disrupt trade, and eliminate jobs. Private patents on fundamental nanoscale materials, tools, and processes are already creating thorny barriers for would-be innovators and could serve to widen the gap between rich and poor and to further consolidate economic power in the hands of multinational corporations.

In a just and judicious context, nanotech could bring useful benefits to the rich and poor alike—cleaner water, cheaper energy, and improved health. Therefore, at a time when truly transforming technologies are emerging far faster than public policies can evolve to address them, it is critical to broaden the community of participants who play a role in determining how new technologies should affect our future. The challenge is to go beyond the tired and familiar approach of technocratic regulations related to “risk” and to gain an innovative capacity for democratic control and assessment of science and technology.

Special Focus, China & India"