Come on now, that's a straw man. If nanobots were neveer the short-term goal then maybe it would pay off to not ramble that enthusiastically about them (and a g

Come on now, that's a straw man. If nanobots were neveer the short-term goal then maybe it would pay off to not ramble that enthusiastically about them (and a good amount of other just as impossible-sounding technology achievements)? Or at least not try and pass it as serious science? Or if not even that, not sell a book selling sci-fi to the masses while dressing it as serious science when it clearly isn't? Obviously science very rarely makes huge leaps. It's also very obvious we need a good amount of progress in materials science before even the theoretically-possible notion of microbots becomes viable. That's all quite fine. But I join the author of the article in mocking people who babble enthusiastically about the far future and sell it as science. And then even have the gall to use complete non-sequiturs like "you can't disprove me!". So you see, I don't disagree with you as far as I can tell. But I still do disagree with the "scientist" that the author's article is referring to.