There is a journal called Nanotechnology. It reports a steady stream of developments pertaining to nanoscale and single-molecule design and synthesis. So that keeps happening.
What has not happened, is the convergence of all these capabilities in the kind of universal nanosynthesis device that Drexler called an assembler, and the consequent construction of devices that only it could make, such as various “nanobots”.
It is similar to the fate of one of his mentors, Gerard O’Neill, who in the 1970s, led all kinds of research into the construction of space colonies and the logistics of space industrialization. Engineering calculations were done, supply chains were proposed; one presumes that some version of all that is physically possible, but no version of it was ever actually carried out.
In that case, one reason why is because of the enormous budgets involved. But another reason is political and cultural. American civilization was visionary enough to conceive of such projects, but not visionary enough to carry them out. Space remained the domain of science, comsats, spysats, and a token human presence at the international space station, but even returning to the moon was too much.
In the case of Drexler’s nanotechnology, I’m sure that lack of broad visionary support within the culture, has been a crucial factor in nothing happening. But I suspect another issue here was the caution with which the nanotech-aware community approached its own concept. Drexler’s 1986 book on the subject emphasized throughout that nanotechnology is an extinction risk, and yet the people who undertook to do the design research (Ralph Merkle, Robert Freitas, Drexler himself) also came from that community. I don’t know the sociology of how it all unfolded, but the doomsday fears of gray goo and aerovores must have inhibited them in seeking support. If only they had known how things would work in 2025, a time when having an extinction risk associated with your product is just part of the price of doing business!
Here in 2025, the closest thing to nanotech big business is probably everything to do with nanotubes and graphene. For example, the 1990s Texan nanotech startup Zyvex, which was genuinely interested in the assembler concept, seems to have been bought out by a big Luxembourg company that specializes in nanotube applications. As for people working on the assembler vision itself, I think the stalwarts from Drexler’s circle have kept it up, and they even continue to submit patents. The last I heard, they were being backed by a Canadian banknote authentication company, which is a peculiar arrangement and must involve either an odd story or a stealth strategic investment or both.
Apart from them, I believe there’s one and maybe two (and maybe more) West Coast startups that are pursuing something like the old dream of “molecular manufacturing”. It’s interesting that they exist but are overshadowed by current dreams like crypto, AI, quantum computing, and reusable rockets. Also interesting is the similarity between how nanotechnology as envisioned by Drexler, and friendly AI as envisioned by Yudkowsky, unfolded—except that, rather than fade into the background the way that nano dreams and nightmares were displaced by the more routine scientific-industrial interest in graphene and nanotubes, AI has become one of the sensations of the age, on every desktop and never far from the headlines.
I see potential for a serious historical study here, for example tracing the arc from O’Neill to Drexler to Yudkowsky (and maybe you could throw in Dyson’s Project Orion and Ettinger’s cryonics, but I’d make those three the backbone of the story), and trying to trace what was dreamed, what was possible but never happened, what did actually happen, and the evolving cultural, political, and economic context. (Maybe some of the people in “progress studies” could work on this.)
I think this might be what Peter Thiel’s stagnation thesis is really about (before he dressed it up in theology). It’s not that nothing has been happening in technology or science, but there are specific momentous paths that were not taken. AI has really been the exception. Having personally lived through the second half of that arc (Drexler to Yudkowsky), I am interested in making sense of that historical experience, even as we now race forward. I think there must be lessons to be learnt.
P.S. Let me also note that @Eric Drexler has been known to post here, I would welcome any comment he has on this history.
There is a journal called Nanotechnology. It reports a steady stream of developments pertaining to nanoscale and single-molecule design and synthesis. So that keeps happening.
What has not happened, is the convergence of all these capabilities in the kind of universal nanosynthesis device that Drexler called an assembler, and the consequent construction of devices that only it could make, such as various “nanobots”.
It is similar to the fate of one of his mentors, Gerard O’Neill, who in the 1970s, led all kinds of research into the construction of space colonies and the logistics of space industrialization. Engineering calculations were done, supply chains were proposed; one presumes that some version of all that is physically possible, but no version of it was ever actually carried out.
In that case, one reason why is because of the enormous budgets involved. But another reason is political and cultural. American civilization was visionary enough to conceive of such projects, but not visionary enough to carry them out. Space remained the domain of science, comsats, spysats, and a token human presence at the international space station, but even returning to the moon was too much.
In the case of Drexler’s nanotechnology, I’m sure that lack of broad visionary support within the culture, has been a crucial factor in nothing happening. But I suspect another issue here was the caution with which the nanotech-aware community approached its own concept. Drexler’s 1986 book on the subject emphasized throughout that nanotechnology is an extinction risk, and yet the people who undertook to do the design research (Ralph Merkle, Robert Freitas, Drexler himself) also came from that community. I don’t know the sociology of how it all unfolded, but the doomsday fears of gray goo and aerovores must have inhibited them in seeking support. If only they had known how things would work in 2025, a time when having an extinction risk associated with your product is just part of the price of doing business!
Here in 2025, the closest thing to nanotech big business is probably everything to do with nanotubes and graphene. For example, the 1990s Texan nanotech startup Zyvex, which was genuinely interested in the assembler concept, seems to have been bought out by a big Luxembourg company that specializes in nanotube applications. As for people working on the assembler vision itself, I think the stalwarts from Drexler’s circle have kept it up, and they even continue to submit patents. The last I heard, they were being backed by a Canadian banknote authentication company, which is a peculiar arrangement and must involve either an odd story or a stealth strategic investment or both.
Apart from them, I believe there’s one and maybe two (and maybe more) West Coast startups that are pursuing something like the old dream of “molecular manufacturing”. It’s interesting that they exist but are overshadowed by current dreams like crypto, AI, quantum computing, and reusable rockets. Also interesting is the similarity between how nanotechnology as envisioned by Drexler, and friendly AI as envisioned by Yudkowsky, unfolded—except that, rather than fade into the background the way that nano dreams and nightmares were displaced by the more routine scientific-industrial interest in graphene and nanotubes, AI has become one of the sensations of the age, on every desktop and never far from the headlines.
I see potential for a serious historical study here, for example tracing the arc from O’Neill to Drexler to Yudkowsky (and maybe you could throw in Dyson’s Project Orion and Ettinger’s cryonics, but I’d make those three the backbone of the story), and trying to trace what was dreamed, what was possible but never happened, what did actually happen, and the evolving cultural, political, and economic context. (Maybe some of the people in “progress studies” could work on this.)
I think this might be what Peter Thiel’s stagnation thesis is really about (before he dressed it up in theology). It’s not that nothing has been happening in technology or science, but there are specific momentous paths that were not taken. AI has really been the exception. Having personally lived through the second half of that arc (Drexler to Yudkowsky), I am interested in making sense of that historical experience, even as we now race forward. I think there must be lessons to be learnt.
P.S. Let me also note that @Eric Drexler has been known to post here, I would welcome any comment he has on this history.
@Eric Drexler you were mentioned in the parent comment.