Many of us perceive a certain morality in allowing primitive humans to live without interaction with the broader human civilization. Some of us even go so far as to work to protect such persons from incursions, including basic communication. The concern, of course, is that interaction with us may hurt them, even if we do not intend harm. There are an estimated 100 uncontacted tribes living around the world. Brazil's National Indian Foundation recently sighted and photographed one of them. Our relation with these persons is among the reasons I often wonder whether there are not advanced civilizations around us, in relation to whom we are generally ignorant and impotent, and on whose benevolence we depend without awareness.

Thanks to a post from Michael Anissimov, today I came across an interesting article by Michael Berger on the Nanowerk web site that proposes some definitions for and distinctions among forms of nanotechnology. Although the entire article is worth reading, the part that intrigued me most was its explanation of the difference between two forms of bottom-up nanotechnology: self-assembly and molecular assembly. Self-assembly is the practice of arranging molecules into patterns that will subsequently result in desired forms and functions based on our knowledge of naturally occurring molecular interactions. Molecular assembly, on the other hand, is the theoretical practice of creating molecules atom by atom as if in a very small factory.

Although I'm not an expert in nanotechnology, I'll dare say that I don't see a hard distinction between self-assembly and molecular assembly in forms my imagination leads me to consider feasible. As presented by Berger, molecular assembly sounds like the attempt to force atoms into forms and functions against their will, so to speak. It seems that, even if we could do that, the resulting molecules would be unstable, at best. Thus, if atomically-precise fabrication of stable molecules is possible, it seems reasonable to suppose that it would be so only within the constraints of forms and functions that are congruent with atomic tendencies. I wager that expert advocates of molecular assembly recognize this, despite what I understood as Berger's suggestions to the contrary.

At the end of the article, Berger writes the following:

"Here is some food for thought: if nature can grow and operate incredibly complex systems such as humans, maybe our technological future is 'wet' – where factories seem like archaic, crude flintstone-like tools, 'machines' are really more like organisms, and we 'grow' everything we need. That would be 'green' and environmentally compatible technology in the truest sense. And nobody will talk about 'nanotechnology' anymore."

. . . food for thought, indeed. This seems like a good step toward reconciling the differences that Berger originally outlined between self-assembly and molecular assembly. In the same way that self-assembly relies on the natural tendencies of molecules, molecular assembly would rely on the natural tendencies of atoms. Perhaps I'm missing something here, and would like to be corrected if any reader understands these concepts better than I.

Finally, I'd like to point out an interesting analogy between Mormon ethics and the feasible forms of nanotechnology described in the article. Mormon scripture and tradition hold that enduring power results from persuasion rather than force, and that this limitation applies to God quite as much as it applies to us. Joseph Smith described God as an emergent being that found himself within a chaos of spirit matter, and thereafter sought to institute laws to organize the spirit matter to become more like himself. He further claimed that the creative acts of God are accomplished through organization and persuasion, allowing spirit matter to act according to its agency within provided environments, rather than seeking to remove its agency. Mormons anticipate that the give and take between individual agency and divinely-instituted environment will tend to develop us into beings like God. This sounds to me a lot like the idea of working to leverage, rather than work against, the natural tendencies of atoms and molecules to achieve the forms and functions we desire (and they "desire", by implication).

My oldest son recently won the science fair with his project on Moore's Law and accelerating technological change. He and I spent a lot of time collecting price and performance information about historic computers, discussing how we can try to predict the future based on projections of historic trends, and talking about differences between linear and exponential trends and their appearances in graphs. I enjoyed watching him present everything he learned to his class. Take a look!

Question: What will computers be like in the year 2033, when I'm 35 years old?

Hypothesis: From experience and research, I think they'll become more powerful.

Experience: My old computer is slow, but my new computer is fast!

Research: I used the Internet to find the power of old computers.

Computer Name (Processor Name)	Year	Speed (IPS)	Price	Adjusted Price	Speed (IPS) / $1,000
Busicom 141-PF (Intel 4004)	1972	60,000	$500	$2,600	23,077
R2E Micral (Intel 8008)	1973	60,000	$1,700	$8,300	7,229
SCELBI-8H (Intel 8008)	1974	60,000	$1,000	$4,600	13,043
Altair 8800 (Intel 8080)	1975	640,000	$700	$2,900	220,690
Apple I (MOS Technology 6502)	1976	430,000	$500	$1,900	226,316
Commodore PET 2001 (MOS Technology 6502)	1977	430,000	$600	$2,100	204,762
Tandy TRS-80 (Zilog Z80)	1978	580,000	$600	$2,000	290,000
Tandy TRS-80 (Motorola 68000)	1979	1,000,000	$1,000	$3,100	322,581
Tandy TRS-80 (Motorola 68000)	1980	1,000,000	$700	$2,000	500,000
IBM PC (Intel 8088)	1981	330,000	$1,565	$3,900	84,615
IBM PC (Intel 8088)	1982	330,000	$1,265	$2,800	117,857
IBM PC jr (Intel 8088)	1983	330,000	$700	$1,500	220,000
IBM PC AT (Intel 286)	1984	2,700,000	$6,000	$12,300	219,512
Compaq DeskPro 286 (Intel 286)	1985	2,700,000	$4,500	$8,900	303,371
Compaq Deskpro 386 (Intel 386)	1986	6,000,000	$5,000	$9,500	631,579
Compaq Deskpro 386 (Intel 386)	1987	7,000,000	$6,500	$12,100	578,512
Compaq Deskpro 386 (Intel 386DX)	1988	8,500,000	$10,300	$18,600	456,989
Compaq Deskpro 386 (Intel 386DX)	1989	8,500,000	$8,000	$13,900	611,511
Compaq Deskpro 486 (Intel 486)	1990	20,000,000	$14,000	$24,200	826,446
Compaq Deskpro 486 (Intel 486)	1991	20,000,000	$3,200	$5,000	4,000,000
Dell Dimension 486DX (Intel 486DX)	1992	54,000,000	$2,100	$3,200	16,875,000
Compaq Deskpro Pentium (Intel Pentium)	1993	100,000,000	$3,200	$4,700	21,276,596
Apple Power Macintosh 6100 (PowerPC 601)	1994	35,000,000	$1,800	$2,500	14,000,000
Acorn Network Computer (ARM 7500FE)	1995	35,900,000	$400	$500	71,800,000
Dell OptiPlex GX Pro (Intel Pentium Pro)	1996	541,000,000	$2,500	$3,400	159,117,647
Apple Macintosh G3 (PowerPC G3)	1997	525,000,000	$2,000	$2,600	201,923,077
Micron Millenia 450 (Intel Pentium II)	1998	855,000,000	$1,900	$2,400	356,250,000
Dell OptiPlex GX 110 (Intel Pentium III)	1999	1,354,000,000	$1,200	$1,500	902,666,667
Gateway Select 1200 (AMD Athlon)	2000	3,561,000,000	$2,500	$3,100	1,148,709,677
HP Workstation i2000 (Intel Itanium)	2001	6,000,000,000	$7,000	$8,300	722,891,566
HP Pavilion 752n (AMD Athlon XP 2400+)	2002	5,935,000,000	$1,200	$1,400	4,239,285,714
Gateway 700GX (Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition)	2003	9,726,000,000	$3,300	$3,800	2,559,473,684
Dell Inspiron 500m (Intel Pentium M)	2004	1,959,000,000	$1,200	$1,300	1,506,923,077
Dell XPS 260 (Intel Pentium 4)	2005	18,000,000,000	$1,800	$2,000	9,000,000,000
Dell XPS 410 (Intel Core 2 X6800)	2006	27,079,000,000	$2,500	$2,600	10,415,000,000
Dell Precision T7400 (Intel Quad Core Xeon)	2007	37,000,000,000	$1,600	$1,600	23,125,000,000

Results: The power of computers is increasing exponentially.

Conclusion: In 2033, computers may be as powerful as human brains.