Futuristic Nanotech Advances Predicted in, U.S. Congress Report

Futuristic nanotech advances predicted in U.S. Congress report
By Futuretalk

Nanotechnology: the Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think is the title of a Congressional report published in March, 2007 by Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress.

Authored by Georgetown University’s Dr. Joseph Kennedy and accepted by the 5 Democrat and 5 Republican committee members from both the House and Senate, the paper lists nanotech advances expected over the coming decades and how they might affect the economy and society. The report divides products and ideas into groups that fall into the following timeline:

• 2000-2005: Mostly passive nano products were developed in this period, including more effective sunscreens without the white cream appearance associated with traditional lotions; lighter-weight tennis rackets with nano-reinforced strings that improve play; and stain/water-resistant clothing that requires less maintenance.

• 2005-2010: Active nano products that change their state during use are typical for this group. These include materials that sense when a product is strained (such as dents in car bodies) and will automatically repair itself when damaged; materials that respond to sunlight by emitting an electrical charge, which can be used to power appliances; and clothing and other objects that change color and texture on command.

• 2010-2015: Nanomaterials that assemble themselves together to achieve a final goal will become available in this period. Applications include proteins or viruses that build small batteries, nanostructures that create a lattice on which bone or other tissues could grow, smart dust strewn over an area that sense the presence of humans and communicates their location, and devices that find and destroy cancer cells without harming neighboring tissues.

• 2015-2020: Advances expected during this time include systems that render hazardous materials harmless; nano-chemicals that enrich farmlands by placing correct amounts of oxygen and nutrients into the soil; nano-devices that roam the body to repair damaged cells, monitor vital conditions, and display health information on skin cells (in a format resembling temporary tattoos); and computers that receive commands directly from human thought.

It may also become possible in this timeframe for scientists, with a better understanding of biological systems, to design new tissues and organs using strategies superior to the ones that life uses as it arranges atoms and molecules to build plants, animals, and us. This, some predict, could launch new technologies that would change forever our notion of what is life.

• 2020 and Beyond: As the future continues to advance exponentially, science and technologies will race forward at near-infinite speeds. This point is referred to as the “Singularity,” which some define as a period when scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum, resulting in the creation of sci-fi-like products and events. Possibilities by the 2030s could include far-reaching ideas such as one suggested by futurist Ray Kurzweil in his book, The Singularity is Near. Kurzweil says that humanity will one day transcend its biological limitations and gain abilities to interface directly with machines to absorb huge levels of intelligence created by powerful supercomputers.

The report goes on to say, “Most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved with tomorrow’s developing technologies.”

Welcome to what promises to be an amazing “magical future.”

This article will appear in various print media and blogs; comments welcome. See other published work by Futuretalk at http://www.positivefuturist.com/archive.html

What impressed me the most in researching this piece, was being aware that our stodgy government officials were bold enough to discuss such futuristic technologies as “Nanoparticles that assemble themselves together,” nano-devices that roam the body to repair damaged cells”, monitor vital conditions, and display health information on skin cells”, and actually giving credence to the possibility of a “Singularity” happening.

And when the report referred to Ray Kurzweil’s predictions that “humanity will one day transcend its biological limitations and gain abilities to interface directly with machines to absorb huge levels of intelligence created by powerful supercomputers,” it was difficult to believe these words were coming from members of Congress, and not some radical transhumanist group.

Also, when the report mentions that “Most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved with tomorrow’s developing technologies,” notice that they used words like “most”, not all, and “can be solved”, not will be solved. All in all, I see this as a positive statement.

I am just thankful that our government is beginning to recognize that an incredible future could unfold that promises radical improvements ahead. Reports like this could help that “magical future” I rant about so much become reality some day.

Futuretalk, I agree with you that it seems pretty amazing when governments, large corporations, and well funded economic "think tanks" (as opposed to Futurist think tanks) start considering theories of a technological singularity seriously, but some of your quotes left out mention of certain assumptions and notes of caution....I think it's important to include them.
Your quote reads “Most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved with tomorrow’s developing technologies,”....that's misleading. It was written in the report as being an assumption:

"Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.
Whether or not one believes in the Singularity, it is difficult to overestimate
nanotechnology’s likely implications for society. For one thing, advances in just the last five years have proceeded much faster than even the best experts had predicted."


----the last few sentences of the report----
"The world in which our children live will surely be a different one. Whether it is
a better one is largely up to them to decide. Continued technological advancement,
including on the nanoscale, will not automatically make the world any fairer or safer, but it will increase the resources available to those who want to ensure that it is."

the full report is here:
Nanotechnology: The Future Is Coming Sooner Than You Think (A Joint Economic Committee Study)

also...as difficult as it it to predict future technological developments accurately, doing so is a piece of cake compared to predicting how societies and cultures will be affected by them....or even if all or any people within a society will be capable of, or choose to, adapt to them....

I believe the real questions are whether or not humankind will (or can) allow a Technological Singularity to occur, what conditions and constraints may be put on it (if it's possible to control it), and what shape society will take after it.

Futuretalk articles, which appear in several newspapers in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon, are limited to about 500 words and the readership includes mostly seniors who hope to learn about developing science and technologies that promise better health, wealth, expanded creativity, and a more rewarding leisure time.

Though there are many other elements of this report that deserved attention, I was unable to fit them into the piece. I tried to focus on what I believed were the more important issues to the readers.

And as to possible dangers from tomorrow’s AI systems that as some predict, could develop intelligence superior to humans and reach a point where this futuristic intelligence might consider humanity too weak to be important and begin to take over the world and eliminate civilization, this writer prefers to believe that humans will be able to interconnect with this futuristic intelligence with non-biological neurons made from nanomaterials and in a sense, we would become the machines.

I don’t mean anyone would lose their humanity, we would still consider ourselves human. Improving biology with powerful non-biological tools does not make us non-human.

And as a positive futurist interested in pushing the envelope in ways that favor humanity, I purposely did not address the “fear” scenarios.

The report did not say this.
It said that this is one of several assumptions made by those predicting a Technological Singularity.
It's an important distinction. Your misquote is misleading.

Cautious and balanced optimism is not equatable to creating fear scenarios....neither is accurately quoting your sources.

Futuretalk articles, which appear weekly in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon newspapers, nearly always focus on the positive potential of science and technology events. This is by design, as we are attempting to describe a future that will attract people who otherwise may be content to give up on life.

Most of my readers are seniors like me, and some live sort of a dull, dismal life without many good expectations to look forward to. Many of the topics I write about offer hope that a better life can be achieved, and if people properly maintain their body today, they have a shot of surviving into a time when technology can give them a boost.

I also publish a weekly newsletter with subscribers that include two NIH Deputy Directors, and a lobby organization that distributes selected issues to members of the U.S. Congress. I feel good that I have an “ear” to government officials and believe that the only reason they are interested my articles is because of the extreme forwardness of the subject matter.

In this piece, I thought it not necessary to quote the complete statement that you refer to, as it would not have packed as positive of punch.

However, for those interested in a more nonbiased version of news events, Time, Newsweek, CNN, and U.S. News are all online and they often stress heavily on negative aspects of news events.

Am I just trying to defend my position here? I probably am.

Futuretalk. Why don't you use the Nanotechnology section of the forum?

Next time nanotech subject comes up, will do.