png@cup.portal.com (Peter Nicholas Glaskowsky) (10/26/90)
[Moderator's note: this is a follow-up to the "nanoecomonics" article previously grabbed from the poli-sci list.] > I think it's worth mentioning at this point that within the next half-century, > the entire nature of economics will be changed by technology. Specifically, > nanotechnology. Well, I don't think it's going to happen that fast. Even if the basic technology for these "molecular assemblers" becomes widely available in the next five years, it'll take much more than 45 years just to figure out how to use it to produce all the things we need to live. (Not that we'll necessarily want to figure out how to manufacture the same kinds of products we use today-- it'll probably turn out to be better to develop new products which serve the same purposes.) And... > Why work for someone else when you can make your own food, build your own > house, clothe yourself, and build and power your own appliances with the > energy available to you wherever you reside (i.e. sunlight and wind)? Only > because you _like the work_. The problem here is that you're not going to be able to get anywhere near enough energy from "sunlight and wind" to create complex materials-- the chemical bonds you'll be breaking and forming won't be any cheaper because you're doing them on such a small scale. Nanotechnology might help promote the cause of individualism, but it's not a sure thing. This isn't the first time that some basic technology has been heralded as a breakthrough in self-sufficiency. Farming probably looked the same to hunter-gatherers... > In that coming world, barring political obstructionism, nearly everyone will > be middle-class and healthy. The remaining forms of wealth will be land, raw > materials, and information. Just remember that dirt and garbage and junk make > excellent raw materials for assemblers, and information is an unlimited > resource. Right? "All you need to farm is land, and a few raw materials (seeds, etc.). You'll never again have to put up with your brother-in-law just because you need his help to chase down an antelope!" > On the other hand, the copyright and patent battles over nanotech software > will be something to see. I'm sure we'll see those battles, all right. And that software will become just as important as groceries are to us today. People adapt! Not just to the bad things, but also to the good things. We learn to overcome adversity, and we learn to overcome prosperity, too. Well, I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but it's true, isn't it? We've got telephones, cars, airplanes, nuclear power plants, computers, and all kinds of neat stuff, all around us. One trained person can create enough wealth in a day to support twenty or thirty people. Are we rich? I don't know about you, but I'm sure not! By my standards, of course. Add nanotechnology, and maybe I'll be able to improve my productivity by another order of magnitude. Will I be rich then? I doubt it. . png
pem5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Perry E Metzger) (10/26/90)
[Mod. note: another followup to the "nanoecomonics' article.] >I think it's worth mentioning at this point that within the next half-century, >the entire nature of economics will be changed by technology. Specifically, >nanotechnology. As they said in Porgy and Bess, "It ain't neccessarily so." I suggest you read the book "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman. In it, he argues that when society advances economics remain the same, but the things that are considered valuable can change radically. For instance, matches used to be valuable. Nowadays they are given away at bars as advertising. Friedman addressed the question of what happens to economics when automation makes everything we have now dirt cheap. (He didn't know about nanotech when he wrote the book, but the principles are the same). Someday, Friedman noted, it is possible that fine restaurants served by robot waiters will let you eat free because food will be too cheap to charge for; the restaurant would make its money off of selling its walls and the tablecloth for advertising. The domain of valuable objects might someday become information, or rare materials (all the nanotech in the world won't let you turn lead into gallium, for instance), or energy, or a host of other things. Don't assume that just because food and shelter might become too cheap to care about that economics will cease to function. Even if the human race completely transforms, so long as there are intellegent creatures and they possess different resources they will be governed by the laws of economics when they engage in trade. Perry Metzger --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Oppression by one man is a crime. Oppression by many men is a government." Curious about the Libertarian Party? Call LP National HQ at 1-800-682-1776.
dutchman@wpi.wpi.edu (jonathan) (11/02/90)
>[Mod. note: another followup to the "nanoecomonics' article.] >I think it's worth mentioning at this point that within the next half-century, >the entire nature of economics will be changed by technology. Specifically, >nanotechnology. I raise my hand in disagreement. The energy it takes to develop these new processes has to come from somewhere. I think it's going to be a very close call - whether we can develop nanotech to clean up our atmosphere, our bodies, do very large scale molecular construction, etc., or we run out of oil, then coal, then wood, causing either the next ice age or a heavy-duty heat wave. If we don't have the energy, we won't have an economy. jonathan jonathantdrummeyhimomdutchman@wpi.wpi.edu7925050box375fnordwpiworcester,ma01609 [This doesn't quite make sense. There's no reason the development of nanotechnology should take any more energy than running a ski resort, or making a motion picture, or managing an insurance company, or any other undertaking that the same number of people might be doing using current-day methods and equipment. If it's as critical to the survival of the world as you beleive (it isn't) there would be plenty of resources available to divert from non-essential tasks. --JoSH]
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.25.16.33.55.1990.3389@athos.rutgers.edu>, pem5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Perry E Metzger) writes: >The domain of valuable objects might someday become information, or rare >materials (all the nanotech in the world won't let you turn lead into >gallium, for instance), or energy, or a host of other things. Don't assume >that just because food and shelter might become too cheap to care about that >economics will cease to function. Even if the human race completely >transforms, so long as there are intellegent creatures and they possess >different resources they will be governed by the laws of economics when they >engage in trade. You're absolutely right, of course. There will still be things of value that nanotech can't produce that people will want to trade. Personal service, for instance. A person might be willing to trade something for eating in a restaurant where the waiters are human. Or for information he needs for some reason. Or for raw materials or energy, etc. However, the point I'm trying to make is that most, if not all, of the arguments for collectivism will become invalid. Every such argument I've seen says that because some of the populace are not capable of providing themselves with their basic needs, or live on the edge of those needs, that the remainder of the populace must pay to provide for that subset. When the basic necessities are too cheap to charge for, and in fact each individual can provide those for himself with the very few resources I mentioned earlier, these arguments no longer have a foundation. Only a very tiny fraction of the populace will still be incapable of providing their own needs. That fraction can be taken care of by private charities. >poof< Dan Hankins dan-hankins@cup.portal.com dan-hankins@pro-realm.cts.com Freedom: I won't. [I'm afraid that nanotechnology won't cure the urge to collectivism, primarily because perceived need is quite boundless (the kind of medical attention referred to as an absolute necessity didn't exist a century ago) but more directly because the argument is a rationalization rather than a reason. Advancing technology has cured many ills, but stupidity and orneriness haven't been among them. --JoSH]
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.1.19.53.21.1990.6734@athos.rutgers.edu>, dutchman@wpi.wpi.edu (jonathan) writes: >I raise my hand in disagreement. The energy it takes to develop these new >processes has to come from somewhere. I think it's going to be a very close >call - whether we can develop nanotech to clean up our atmosphere, our >bodies, do very large scale molecular construction, etc., or we run out of >oil, then coal, then wood, causing either the next ice age or a heavy-duty >heat wave. If we don't have the energy, we won't have an economy. There's lots of potential energy in hydrogen, and lots of hydrogen in Earth's oceans. The Princeton Tokamak (TFTR) just last month reached predicted scientific break-even. The combination of nanotech and fusion technology promises to put safe, usable fusion energy into the price range and space requirements of the middle-income individual. Even without the extra energy, nanotech should be more efficient than current processes. The precision of being able to direct the positioning of individual molecules virtually guarantees it. The human body is a nanotech machine. Consider how efficient it is. It is possible to design nanotech machines even more efficient than that. Dan Hankins dan-hankins@cup.portal.com dan-hankins@pro-realm.cts.com Freedom: I won't. [I'm not terribly sanguine about fusion in the near to medium term. Nanotech could put clean *fission* in the reach of any homeowner sooner. It could make solar and geothermal economic, revolutionize energy storage, etc, etc. There's really no need to worry about the availability of energy except in the near term. The human body is an incredibly *inefficient* machine, as are all higher organisms. We should expect at least an order of magnitude improvement from nanotech--what we give up is the ability of the mechanism to evolve, which is coincidentally something we greatly desire to leave out of our nano-engineered gadgetry. --JoSH]