Transforming the Material Basis of Civilization | Eric Drexler | TEDxISTAlameda

What if we were really good at making things-better products of all kinds-in a clean way, at a very low cost, and on a global scale? What if today’s industrial and energy infrastructure could be replaced with clean, zero-carbon emission technologies at a rapid pace? The result would be a profound revolution in the material basis of our civilization and radically different prospects for the 21st century. A technology of this scope and power is visible in the distance today, not close, but accessible through a series of advances in nanotechnology and the molecular sciences. By merging digital and manufacturing principles at the molecular scale, atomically precise manufacturing can transform our world. It’s time to expand the horizons of our conversation about the future.
K. Eric Drexler, Ph.D., is a researcher at Oxford University and author whose work focuses on advanced nanotechnologies. His 1981 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences established fundamental principles of molecular design, protein engineering, and productive nanosystems. Drexler’s research in this field has been the basis for numerous journal articles and for books including Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (written for a general audience) and Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation (a quantitative, physics-based analysis). He recently served as Chief Technical Consultant to the Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems, a project of the Battelle Memorial Institute and its participating US National Laboratories. He is currently working in a collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund to explore nanotechnology-based solutions to global problems such as energy and climate change.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx

[@randyedmonds8742]

This man will go down in history as one of the forefathers of the "diamond age". The importance of his ideas are cannot be overemphasized.

[@MatthewLong8]

Amazing talk. I'm stunned at how few views it has. It's counter intuitive that nanoscale production can increase the rate of production of macro scale objects but he explains it so clearly. What a brilliant way of framing the interaction of materials and society. To call this Absolutely fantastic doesn't begin to do it justice.

[@rickkowalchuk6391]

Continued technological development seems to be best hope!

[@TraderTimmy]

My guess would be by 2030 these nano manufacturing machines will be ready to go.

[@itisno1]

Hope you're right. 8 years to go

[@FrederickSelmon]

right on schedule....wow!

[@MoneylessWorld]

Fascinating engineering. An extremely materialistic world view, that man. Disturbing to see him push forward global warming as real and that he's looking at nanotech to fix the CO2 "problem". Without CO2, no plant or tree will grow.

[@light8258]

The plan is to be carbon neutral, as in, take the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, not all of it. Global warming is real and undeniably real. Everyone can see, there's a correlation between temperature rising and CO2 levels rising and we can prove, that there's not only correlation but causation by looking at C14 molecules in the atmosphere. Also, I totally agree, his vision is absolutely fascinating and I'm studying nanotechnology in part to work on this becoming a reality.

[@MoneylessWorld]

@@light8258 I think there's no such things as a CO2 problem. If there's more CO2, there's more plant growth which eliminates it. It's a total scam to roll out an anti-human global governance system. Also, how can anybody talk about global warming without factoring in continuous geoengineering since 1995? They engineer extreme weather to sell the global warming hoax.

[@light8258]

@@MoneylessWorld Plants do not eliminate our excess CO2, because if they did, how are we measuring CO2 levels rising? Of course to a certain degree plants are a buffer, but their needs can also be saturated, and after a certain threshold, more CO2 will have negative effects even on plants. If you are sceptical about our climate models and predictions (related to your latter points) I can understand, but denying global warming is just as ridiculous as flat earth society. Most scientists are just people like you and me, trying to uncover the truths of nature.

[@MoneylessWorld]

​@@light8258 I'm not denying extreme weather: I'm saying it's engineered via geoengineering to push the climate change agenda which in the end is driven by money and power (carbon tax, A global totalitarian state to "combat the climate threath"...). I disagree on your 'most scientists uncover truth' bit. The vast majority of scientists do "science" for which they are payed. Payed by their employer, in many cases universities, who receive or lose grants, depending on which research they do and which outcomes those studies yield.

[@PapiJack]

​@@light8258I appreciate you trying to explain it in simple terms, unfortunately some people are too far gone. Just like flat earthers or religious fundametalist, some people's worldview is so far removed from reality that reason alone is not enough to bridge the gap.

[@FrederickSelmon]

Radical Abundance is a great book!

[@hmq9052]

I really enjoyed listening to the person scoffing a packet of biscuits while recording this film

[@IngemarKenyatta]

People will laugh at this stuff until it begins showing up. Then they will act like they knew it was coming all along. Like they took it serious from the beginning. Why must we approach everything new in the same foolish way?

[@TraderTimmy]

Some people are just pessimists. But people like us? We are optimistic. That's all. Oh, and we have the patience to soak in videos like this and actually understand them. Most regular folks don't.

[@danbreeden5481]

Ribosome the first molecular assembler

[@josephschwarzkopf3839]

Dr Reiner Fuelmich Dr David Martin Dr Simone Gold Dr Kari Mullis Nuremburg II

[@joshuamartin3881]

Thanks for uploading btw.

[@Exile438]

when will this happen.

[@gabsrants]

+Exile438 as soon as the US uses all the money it dumps into its military budget to research nanotech. After that give it 5 years.

[@manickn6819]

I was listening to this in the background while doing something else so maybe I misunderstood but millions of operations per second on the nano scale still leads to a small amount of end product.

[@charlesalexanderable]

Manick N he posits that you would still have the same mass ratio of machine to product per cycle, so with enough of the tiny machines to be the same overall mass of the bigger machine, they would produce the same mass of product per cycle, but the cycle time of the tiny ones would be a 100,000-1million times faster. To make something large those small products then have to be assembled together, which takes additional time, but he shows an example heirarchical way to do it in log8(n) steps

[@manickn6819]

Charles Thanks. Maybe I should run over this video and pay more attention.

[@joshuamartin3881]

All you base are belong to us.

[@Brainbuster]

Huh?

[@RenzoRugnone]

lmao

[@thearchive26788]

It's a cheat code from age of empires.

[@anarchynow4756]

Hahahahahahah! Primitive humans! The most important thinker since Bohm, Fermi, or Feynman, and not 10K views! Hahahahahahah! Primitive humans!!! Anarchy Now!

[@penyopetrov7081]

Sorry but one bit today still consists of billions of "free" electrons and too many atoms!

[@n1mbusmusic606]

Grey goo dood

[@personzorz]

He's still showing the damn spinning gear animations?