posted
Okay, in most imaginable circumstances--99.9% of possible situations--I would not explain anything about nanotechnology to any person living in the past. In the remaining 0.1% of cases, I would usually say something deliberately misleading, if not actually false.
The only cases where I would explain anything about nanotechnology to someone living in the past would be if that person was already an expert in the field who needed a little guidance to either achieve or avoid a technology breakthrough directly related to my mission in the past. In which case I would be explaining it to someone with knowledge far greater than what is ever going to be common coin. I would use the exact same terminology that said expert would expect from a peer working on the cutting edge of the field.
That said, your question implies that you would be talking to people who are not experts in nanotechnology. Since my answer isn't applicable to explaining things to a non-expert, I need to know what kind of situation you're talking about before I could give you a useful answer.
quote:That said, your question implies that you would be talking to people who are not experts in nanotechnology. Since my answer isn't applicable to explaining things to a non-expert, I need to know what kind of situation you're talking about before I could give you a useful answer.
If you don't have something to say, then why do you have a need to say anything? The question was a technical one, a communications one. There was no whys, no ifs, no when, but a how. The assumption is that the character is explaining it to people who don't have the technology and have some reason to know - whatever reason you might give. The assumption the person posing the question is that you'd use some imagination to fill in whatever irrelevent details were missing.
Posts: 92 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hypothetical situation: the nanotechnology is loose in the past and is starting to remake things...the [nano-knowing] character has to explain to the [nano-ignorant] character what is happening right in front of their eyes...but the [nano-knowing] character doesn't want to come off as someone who's telling horrendous lies. Seems to be plenty of situations where one would tell the truth about nanotechnology---or any advanced technology that could be mistaken for magic---and an explanation which could easily be mistaken for horrendous lies, as well.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I second the idea of "magic." If you wanted, you could pull out "witchcraft" or "miracle" or "phenomenon" or one of a hundred terms that will mean almost exactly the same thing. I think in your particular situation, less explanation would be the least psychologically damaging to the nano-ignorant character. Nano-knowing should exercise some restraint in this department.
Nano-knowing and nano-ignorant are great names, by the way.
posted
First, I'd avoid any hint that I had anything to do with causing this. Second, I'd figure out what in particular I wanted the other guy to do. Only then could I devise a strategy for getting him to do it. It probably wouldn't involve an actual explanation of nanotechnology. I might go so far as to say it was the work of a mutated slime-mold, though.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, I'm not particuarly drawn to calling it "magic."
I'm not enamored of flinging the words "nanotechnology," or "nanotech," or "nano," around, either. I was just reading a story in Apex Digest, where the writer mentions "nanotech sails," meaning (I presume) sails intended to move a spaceship through the force of emitted photons. (A grotesque explanation in itself.)
First off, I've always thought of this as a "solar sail" or "light sail." And second, I don't know that the character in question would necessarily refer to it as anything but a "sail." (As she does in several places in the story.)
It's like referring to "electric refrigerator" or "gasoline car." There are other kinds, but we would go with what was most familiar and, in most circumstances, not introduce a modifying adjective.
(What pointed this out for me, years ago, was when I used "spaceport," a familiar word to most of us---but, chances are, those who lived around one would call it the "port," without a modifying portion. Realizing this clarified writing about the future for me...created a few ideas, too.)
posted
Since I got some people worked up, and got a lot of help in the process, I think you're all entitled to see what I wrote when I finally reached the scene where I have one character explain nanotechnology to another---such as it is, and before any serious thoughts of revision.
*****
"....It appears to have been an isolated attack. I can detect nothing within range. If the Master were awake---"
"But he'll be all right?"
"Oh, he should. The Little Robots in him should fight off the attack."
"Little Robots?" The term was unfamiliar to her.
"You are familiar with the concept of robots, aren't you?"
"Mechanical men," she said. "But what did you mean?"
"These are tiny robots, the size of microorganisms. Millions of them, in his bloodstream, throughout his body." He blinked. "You have them too."
posted
There's actually an interesting book out on this, written by Ray Kurzweil (inventor of the flatbed scanner, I believe) entitled "The Singularity is Near." Prepare for a long read, it's over 1000 pages but I believe it's well worth it Posts: 45 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
