À rebours by the author who has influenced my user name. That is all I have to say to this reference. MIT hasn’t envisioned anything but has merely adapted a disturbingly predictive text from the 1880s which describes this very topic to its conclusion.

From what I can tell here, nothing new is being added. I suggest those at MIT do their history before trying to create the future.

-huysmans

[...] matter is mind blowing. It’s interesting to contrast this innovation with Bruce Branit’s Worldbuilder, which we posted about earlier this week. Will there be a time we can change the physical [...]

Please tell me about this text and how it has envisioned a deeply complicated technological achievement. It may have theoretically envisioned a narrative, but understanding the intricacies of engineering and programing is a different game. And we must give credit do those contributing to different areas of knowledge and understanding — even if they overlap, the contribution in this case is very different.

I don’t know how you can say nothing new is being added.

Leave it to a blogger to identify technological advancements as being different from the theoretical ideas. Stick to what you started with: this merges the artificial and the natural. That idea and the outcome of it was argued to conclusion in the late 1880s, the problem is that conclusion pissed off you progressives so you ignored it. Don’t ask for a summary of the book because in reality as Edward Albee said, if it could be summed up in a short paragraph then it should only be a paragraph long. Why don’t you take the time and read the book that defeated all your arguments 100 years before you were born.