"Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

topic posted Thu, January 12, 2006 - 4:58 PM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Vlad brought this up in the thread below.

Thats something i havent thought about in awhile. I remember reading about nanotech and Drexler about 10 years ago when i was far to the left and figured that it would eventually lead to essentially this socialist paradise on earth where everyone "haves" and no one "have nots".

What would the world look like if any possible product could be created for essentially nothing?

My view now is that things would look virtually no different than today.
The flaw in my thinking was the fundamental purpose of life which i believe is to struggle. If the entire world had everything it could possibly want it would quickly find a way to create a struggle. You would quickly get highly irrational behaviour(insanity), blow up the nanotech machines of another country just for something "to do".
The whole system would eventually collapse, and then you would have this struggle again to rebuild the nanotech world that once was.
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

    Thu, January 12, 2006 - 8:06 PM
    There's some related discussion here : alt-money.tribe.net/thread/4...9b0645e43

    Here's another hint. Music is basically so incredibly cheap to copy and distribute that it behaves much like free. So, powerful interest groups lobby the government to pass ever more draconian laws to simulate that it's actually a scarce, tradably property.

    If we get the engines of creation in the wrong context I guess the emphasis will move to protecting the designs and patterns used to create things, rather than the things themselves. And then using them as vehicle to keep a "property trading" economy going.
    • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

      Fri, January 13, 2006 - 8:00 AM
      [quote]So, powerful interest groups lobby the government to pass ever more draconian laws to simulate that it's actually a scarce, tradably property.(...) the emphasis will move to protecting the designs and patterns used to create things, rather than the things themselves. And then using them as vehicle to keep a "property trading" economy going.[/quote]

      Exactly, and its as it should be. If you want something some one else created without paying the man for it then design your own. There will always be open source alternatives.
    • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

      Thu, April 27, 2006 - 5:54 PM
      Very nicely put, Phil. A nanofactory will be useless without the "software" to run it. The instructions to make a donut will be thousands of times simpler than the software to make a Rolex watch. As for the example of the present day music "industry", it is true, but a large part of the population is quite comfortable without this product. But let's talk of donuts, Rolexes and a billion other things the world wants and even needs. There will be lots of open source "design packets" out there but people will write very specialized design packets that will only run on their own nanofactory. Then they'll sell their production until someone comes along with software for a better design. Laws will not protect people's designs in the future, nanofactory codes will.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

    Thu, May 11, 2006 - 3:31 PM
    First off, we'll never even make it as far as such complicated systems over nanotech unless we face off against other dilemas first...

    ...Namely the source of funding for most of these nanotech programs...

    The rich are being sold a "bill of goods" which includes (but is not limited by any means to); immortality, invulnerability, increased mental abilities, and near eternal control over their infinitely growing material empire... *MUAHAHAHA*

    So, to put this all into perspective, here, what do you suppose is going to happen once one of... oh hell why even narrow it down to a specific classification; *any* human decides to put the little nanites in themselves so that they just perpetually regenerate them, and they begin to call themselves "God"...

    And then, to top it all off, they actually start acting like it... (while everyone else "can't afford such mysteries")
    Because it's the folks seeking immortality (a fairly simple nanotech proceedure, once the whole being has been nano-mapped; but who knows how long that will take) who are funding this stuff...

    That's why it's already here... (Thankfully they're still missing a few "key ingredients" (from biochemistry) to make it all gel, but you know how fanatically determined not to die people are when they've got money; they'll find a way...)

    No, before we will ever be capable of handling nanotechnology without eventually obliterating ourselves is to first tackle and outgrow our current attitudes towards "the acceptibility of war as a political expression" together, we don't make that hurdle, and we'd end "jumping the hurdle" in the worst possible way - a leg on either side...

    *ALL* bets would be off - those that survived (or evolved into something that could survive) may get lucky enough to carry on *some* kind of legacy, depending on how "creatively accurate" they were about their adaptations to the greater supranature...

    Yeah, anyways, I'll shut up now... LOL!
  • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

    Thu, May 11, 2006 - 8:37 PM

    This seems pretty obvious. This is just the eventual trend we've seen over the last hundred or two years continued into the future.

    Some resoucres will no longer be scarce: manufacturing

    Some will: real estate / services

    The costs of manufactured goods will drop to near zero. But consider that right now probably 80% of your living expenses are taken up by things that nano-assemblers can't build.... such as rent, taxes, energy, real estate, services from other people. People would still work hard so they can get the slice of the pie they want. They want a waiter so serve them food that was hand made by a chef. They want to visit the Bahamas for vacation. They want the big Malibu house. We'd still need to fight over these things by working hard cooking food and selling Bahama vacations to each other. Honestly, if manufacturing costs went to zero my life would not change very much b/c I already have a car, a powerbook, a TV, a desk, a sofa and a bed. I really can't think of what else in the manufactured goods department I really want. Maybe a nicer car and a faster powerbook, but really, the costs of manufactured goods have already dropped to such a low level they don't mean much anymore. Now, we might see the state of the art of manufactured goods level off if its not possible inventing the next Intel chip or the next Lexus, but that will depend on IP laws in that era.

    And consider this... for minimum wage in the USA you could live a life of 18th century luxury today. No electricity. No running water. No car. So for someone from the 18th century, today is a utopia since even the poorest people have more than they did then. If nano-assemblers appeared, we'd just raise the bar of what we want out of life and work hard to get it. SOMETHING will be scarce and we'll work our asses off all our lives to get it. Don't believe me? They tell me why you're not cashing out your 401k and getting a cash advance on your VISA selling your car and moving to Sierra Leone to retire tomorrow? The answer is: no matter what, if you CAN have more, you want more.
    • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

      Thu, May 11, 2006 - 8:43 PM
      [quote]And consider this... for minimum wage in the USA you could live a life of 18th century luxury today. No electricity. No running water. No car. So for someone from the 18th century, today is a utopia since even the poorest people have more than they did then. If nano-assemblers appeared, we'd just raise the bar of what we want out of life and work hard to get it.[/quote]

      I used this arguement (though not so precisely put) in another tribe about minimum wage and the defining upwards of what "poverty" means. Our homeless and near homeless have wealth in excess of the Emperors of Rome in many cases.
      • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

        Sun, May 14, 2006 - 10:13 PM
        [quote]And consider this... for minimum wage in the USA you could live a life of 18th century luxury today. No electricity. No running water. No car. So for someone from the 18th century, today is a utopia since even the poorest people have more than they did then ... .[/quote]

        We always hear this argument and I think it's actually quite misleading. If you were in th 18th century or even ancient Rome and were lucky, you could still expect to live 60 to 70 years. If you were rich you would have running (and hot) water. Except the water would run on the legs of servants. You wouldn't have a car or electricity, but you'd have a horse / carriage etc.

        More importantly, you'd have what always separates the wealthy from the poor : freedom (and reasonably independence) and greater power over your destiny. You'd sleep fairly securely knowing that you weren't in danger of losing your comfortable bed if you got sick and couldn't work. You wouldn't be given orders to do things which you disliked, but needed to, etc. etc.
        • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

          Mon, May 15, 2006 - 8:19 AM
          [quote]More importantly, you'd have what always separates the wealthy from the poor : freedom (and reasonably independence) and greater power over your destiny. You'd sleep fairly securely knowing that you weren't in danger of losing your comfortable bed if you got sick and couldn't work. You wouldn't be given orders to do things which you disliked, but needed to, etc. etc. [/quote]

          Agreed and wealth gives you those things. Wealth has to be built it cant just be wished into existance by fiat. That is why just running the printing presses to make more US Dollars wont solve our problems any more than just saying that low skill labour should get more money it just pushes everything else up and in a very short time the system reballances itself and nothing has change.
        • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

          Mon, May 15, 2006 - 6:06 PM
          <<We always hear this argument and I think it's actually quite misleading>>

          Well, I agree the comparsion is fuzzy. Nevertheless people below the poverty line in the USA today have all kinds of amendities including cars and TV's and cell phones and computers. The point being that manufacturing costs are not a huge issue today compared to in the past. Drexler's nanofactories would provide a boost to overall productivity and wealth but in a far less dramatic way than proposed in the initial post since most of what people want would still be scarce.
          • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

            Mon, May 15, 2006 - 11:11 PM
            seriously...this hans moravec style dreaming is really ridiculous. i mean....the world's got a finite amount of resources. we need to stop dreaming that nanoassemblers will save us.
            • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

              Tue, May 16, 2006 - 11:11 AM
              [quote]seriously...this hans moravec style dreaming is really ridiculous. i mean....the world's got a finite amount of resources. we need to stop dreaming that nanoassemblers will save us.[/quote]

              I dont think most people think it will "save us" but rather that it will usher in material abundance that will shift poverty away from subsistance issues to luxury issues. I am not sure it will ever even get to that point but I am fairly certain that as our productivity continues to climb we'll continue to redefine poverty in such a way that we'll always have some one who can feel disgruntled about being "poor" so that there will always be someone willing to try to take money that they didnt earn from the "rich" in some elaborate wealth redistribution scheme.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

              Fri, May 19, 2006 - 1:06 PM
              >>> .the world's got a finite amount of resources. <<<

              I agree with this, but nanotech *will* change the dynamics of how we actually aquire material resources... (There's nothing stoping folks from launching nanites into the asteroid belt, telling them to mine ore and build a mass driver and send it back to Earth - in fact, it would be a fairly cost efficient enterprise) - now that would only handle *one* of the core issues, but considering almost everything is made up of carbon, but just by importing some of that would irrevokably change the limitations that we are now currently facing.

              Nanotech can re-combine these "raw elements" into *anything* we desired... (repeat *anything* - even "xeroxes" of life, food, etc.) That's a pretty profound ability when you stop and really contemplate it...

              >>> we need to stop dreaming that nanoassemblers will save us. <<<

              I would agree with this statement too - nanotech is just like any other tool in that it will only do what human beings tell it to do... But where nanotech differs from other tools, is that it's only inherent limitations reside in the human mind directing them...

              (For instance, what do you suppose would happen if someone decided to use nano-assemblers to make *perfect replicas* of currency...? Kinda hard to control an economy then, huh?)

              Nanotech simply changes all the rules, simply by existing... (what I would term an "Omega Tech" - something that can only be refined, not outmoded)

              We will simply be *forced* into considering a more holistic way of approaching the management of resources on this Earth and their equitable distribution, or devolve into a continual struggle for determining who gets to determine what that eventually alters, improves, damages, or obliterates our species...)

              So doesn't this lend to the question; What system can be devised that can *survive* nanotech...?
              • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

                Mon, May 22, 2006 - 12:48 PM
                >Nanotech can re-combine these "raw elements" into *anything* we desired... (repeat *anything* - even "xeroxes" of life, food, etc.) That's a pretty profound ability when you stop and really contemplate it...

                Yeah well....the problem is that the technical ability to really do that kind of stuff is pretty far in the future as far as I know. Not trying to be a naysayer but thats the current state of things. In the meantime the earth has some serious resource-management issues that need to be addressed.

                >So doesn't this lend to the question; What system can be devised that can *survive* nanotech...?

                Well...its an interesting question if you assume the sci-fi version of what nanotech turns out to be. The reality is likely to be less transformational in the ways we're thinking of now. Its usually the unknown unknowns that are radical.

                I would content that the more important near-term technical innovations will come in biological systems hacking. Imagine 13 year old kids who are bio-hackers and can buy a kit that replicates for genetics the shift in platforms that the personal computer represented versus the mainframe era.
            • Re: "Maybe with Drexler's nanofactories"

              Wed, May 24, 2006 - 8:14 PM
              <<seriously...this hans moravec style dreaming is really ridiculous. i mean....the world's got a finite amount of resources. we need to stop dreaming that nanoassemblers will save us.>>

              I think the interesting point of this thread is the realization that resources and manufacturing are not the scarce resources people need anymore. It's energy, land, intellectual property, capital and services. A nanoassembler could increase our quality of life, but not at all to the extent that was originally dreamed of when they were first concieved.

Recent topics in "Alternative Money and Economics"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Gold & Soft Dollar ? -----or equities? Briggi 10 December 20, 2009
Crash Course in Economics Paul 3 September 23, 2009
Timetable on the Coming Crash Paul 7 July 4, 2009
The Lewes Pound Scribe 5 July 4, 2009