Nano & Nature

Welcome and Statement of Purpose

Welcome. My name is John Burch. I have had a long-standing interest in both Nanotechnology and Nature. I grew up on a farm, became an engineer, and later became an animator. I am able to appreciate both the power and beauty of nature and the incredible creative power of science. In 2004 I worked in the nano field to create animations to explain nanotechnology. See the post "Timeline" Sept 2 2005 for links to the animation.

I think nano has great potential to support Nature. I believe this because nano will supply all material human needs without drawing significant resources from nature. The human race causes the most damage when survival issues drive us to eat the world and we have little time or energy to worry about a salamander.

I believe there are two confusing forms of nanotechnology at this time. The older, more future-oriented form, which I support whole-heartedly, is concerned with the construction of useful objects directly from raw materials, atom by atom. That is not possible at this time and may take us
another 15 years to really get there. I will use Drexler's terminology of Molecular Manufacturing to refer to this older version of the science. The second form is all the recent research and commercial projects that use bulk materials to produce products that are available today or in the next few years. Nanotechnology can refer to both forms of the science.

Most of what you hear about today is material science with the word "nanotechology" slapped on it to give it more clout. These are commercial projects which have to focus on financial issues for the next two or three years. They often refer to anything with a longer timeline as "science fiction".

These new companies work with bulk quantities of new materials by creating tiny particles that have unique and useful properties. The danger is that in bulk quantity, especially when handled in the traditional industrial manner, these materials may show undesirable qualities. We are testing them at the moment the same way we "tested" asbestos. I'm betting that most of them are benign, but it only takes a few to screw up the party.

Why do I think molecular manufacturing will be good for nature? It will allow us to feed and clothe ourselves without constantly mining nature for what we need to live. We will recycle everything. Our factories will create drinking water as their waste product. The damage we have already done can be healed or modified by using nano machines to harvest harmful chemicals from the soil and water.

I'm sure there will be problems since we are human and we will still be driven by our irrational needs. But the alternative, without molecular manufacturing, is a growing population that needs more and more food, and more places to dump their industrial wastes.

I welcome anyone who wants to have a calm exchange of views and values.

I want the discussion to stay focused. If I can't see how your comment relates to this discussion, I will probably delete it. Also, I ask that we keep a civil tone as if you were in a room with the other person.

Thank you,
John Burch

---