Nanobots

[Axel the Possum No.3208015]

I'm on the fence about nanobots. On the one hand, there's a lot of challenges involved in developing nanotechnology; the scaling of technology is immensely problematic. Creating a remote-controllable robot the size of a blood cell that can monitor its environment, send back data, and perform multiple operations is a feat well beyond us currently; mass-producing them is well beyond even that.

On the other hand, difficulties in developing technology does not mean it's impossible. Cells prove that tiny machines are possible, and we've continuously shown that we can do in a matter of years what nature took eons to do, or could never do, on a far grander scale.

So, /sci/, what's your opinion on nanobots

[Anonymous No.3208029]

People expect them to be able to do too much from the beginning. Op you act them being able to do a single simple task wouldn't be immensely beneficial in itself.

Also, nano racecars.

[Axel the Possum No.3208064]

>>3208029

I have no doubt that single-purpose nanobots would be immensely useful. Regular injections of respirocytes would make every human on Earth more capable and save a great number of lives.

But generalized nanobots have a pretty much endless list of uses. They have the potential to be to medicine and mass production what the computer has been to every facet of the world.

[Anonymous No.3208147]

It will undergo the same process as every other technology.

Kind of like a y=1/(e^-(x/2)+1) curve, progress starts off slow, picks up, then slows again. Like mechanics, you started off with simple shit like windmills for eons, then you started getting pendulum clocks and printing presses, then spinning jennies and pocket watches, then steam engines and jackard looms, then the industrial revolution kicked off and now it's at the point where a ship's engines from the 70s are little different in technical efficiency than ship's engines today beyond a few slight improvements.