Building a World One Atom at a Time

• The main point of contention between Drexler and Smalley is their belief in the way nanotehnology must be manufactured, and also the existence of "Smalley fingers."
• What is at stake in their argument is the ability to dramatically influence future development in the field of nanotechnology.
• Both Drexler and Smalley use certain strategies to refute each other.
•  Smalley:
• Introduces chemistry in the simplest use of the term.
•  Says that the potential risk of losing control of the self-replicating nanobots is a great threat to society and the world as we know it.
• States the nanobots can be easily misused by skilled individuals such as computer hackers and have a high potential for mutation.
• Concludes his argument by stating the impossibility of the integration of nanotechnology.  That wishing it were so will not make it happen.
• Drexler:
• Begins his argument by mentioning the specific field in nanotechnology he is associated with.
• He clearly states his intent in the argument. "You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it."
• Points out that the technology described in Smalley's argument is false.  He calls the apparent "stick finger" problem "Smalley fingers." (I find that quite humorous)
• Establishes his credibility by referencing the other literature he has written in successfully supporting his idea and that other names in the field respect his work.
• Consistently continues to point out the invalidity of Smalley's argument.
• States that Smalley's misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion.
• Uses Smalley's own words against him. '"when a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." The scientist quoted is, of course, Richard Smalley.' (Again, quite humorous)
• Smalley develops his ethos by addressing the apparent disaster that could result from self-replicating nanobots "Self-replicating nanobots would be the equivalent of a new parasitic life-form, and there might be no way to keep them from expanding indefinitely until everything on earth became an undifferentiated mass of gray goo."
  Drexler develops his ethos by noting both the potential risks as well as the opportunities provided by his work. "The consequences of molecular manufacturing are widely understood to be enormous, posing opportunities and dangers of first-rank importance to the long-term security of the U.S. and the world."
• Logical Fallacies Presented in the Debate:
• Smalley:
• He begins a part of his argument with "For fun," then continues to explain the theory behind nanobots.  This shows that he thinks the idea is ridiculous and cannot be credited. By doing so he is misrepresenting the serious nature of the argument.
• The "Either-Or" fallacy is evident in Smalley's argument of the nature of nanotechnology.  That moving atoms requires these big, sticky fingers and that there is no other way to accomplish such a task. As with any complex situation, there are usually many alternate solutions. "To put every atom in its place—the vision articulated by some nanotechnologists— would require magic fingers. Such a nanobot will never become more than a futurist’s daydream."
• Drexler:
•  Drexler's claim appears to be very plausible...in a virtual setting.  Applied full-scale, it may not seem very approachable. 
•  I find Drexler's argument to be more convincing.  It does not leave out important events that have occurred in the field of nanotechnology and does not appear to be misleading, as is the case with Smalley's argument.

-Wow, is Smalley funny or what? "There is no question that many of these youngsters have been told a bedtime story that is deeply troubling. You and people around you have scared our children [...] There will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams."