Slashdot Mirror
Economic Analysis of the Nanotech Future
nweaver writes "Economic Historian and Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong has created an analysis on his Web Log on the economic implications of Nanotechnology. His observations are based on what previously happened with the Industrial Revolution (and other economic shifts in general) and using this to speculate what Nanotech will do to the economy: who wins (technical/knowledge workers), who loses (manufacturing), and what changes (costs of products)."
My assumption is that there would be built-in safegaurds to prevent that, at first atleast. Also, it seems that in the beginning, the technology would be quite limited in and of itself.
Save Sam and Max!
Could we be on the road to a post-scarcity society in the future where nobody is without the basic human necessities and most work is done for recreation or hobby purposes only? Could be, yet for some reason I think our nation's current Corporatocracy wouldn't look kindly on such blatant "communism."
It was a decent article, but if it was included in discussion from yesterday I wouldn't mod it past a +4 Insightful (but someone would), it kinda feels like a long somewhat rambling slashdot post. His conclusion (almost out of the middle of nowhere) was that we need to "improve" education in this country, but no details on what needs to be done. Thrown in is this comment (which would surely get a reply on SlashPolitics): "America is, after all, the only society that does not define its citizens substantially in ethnic terms.". Yea, I wave my flag around a little too much for some, but even I know that is certainly not true, and maybe even a little bit of flame bait (kinda like this comment).
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Yes, but in such a world would we really have a need for money anymore?
will have to become far more important if people are to hold onto any profit margin, surely. If I can "read out" the program to create "the crown jewels", or download it from the net, and replicate it down to the atomic level - what's the difference...
I guess the only fundamental problem is: what manufacturer of nano-bots is ever going to let the bots re-create themselves ? If they do, they'll spread like wildfire, and all manufacturing everywhere will become more like programming...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Since education solves so many problem's concentration on education is not a good argument. Next since he mentions specialized skills there is also a huge retraining problem even for "educated" workers as the technology shifts. Finally I think most people looking at nano-tech miss the most important factor. With it "intelligent" computers are possible. The impact of intelligent machines must be included in any analysis and probably represent and even bigger "shift" than nanotech itself. On that note there is no reason for the training of the human brain to remain stuck in methods developed thousands of years ago. Agian with nanotech and smart computers there is no reason we could not "upload" new skills as needed. Forget about nanotech think about the impact smart machines and programmable humans. Nanotech is just enabling technology.
Just think about this for a second: Alan Turing created his famous test in... what? The 1930s? The 1950s? How many computers have you seen that could pass the test? Simple answer: none.
How many computers have you seen that actually could perform what HAL performed in "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Simple answer: none.
Scientists have been talking about NanoTech for what? Twenty+ years? Have you already seen an application of NanoTech in real life? Where are the real-life NanoTech billionaires? Where is the Bill Gates of nanotech?
I believe that nanotech, just like AI and superconductivity, is a pipe dream. This is simply because solving the technical/scientific problems are simply too large for our current technology.
Don't misunderstand me: nanotech can be useful. Dumb computers are useful right now. Things like micro-mechanical machines may be useful. Limited, one-task-only, expert system can be useful. But real intelligence? Real nanotech? I don't think so.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Well, that would be a big problem. I always wonder, in Star Trek, where there's no need for money because everybody has a replicator, who cleans the toilets in public restrooms? There are some really, really, dirty disgusting nasty jobs out there, that nobody would do, if it weren't for the fact that they were willing to do it for money. If, in the future, you can make anything you want for what is essentially "free" (I know it still costs energy and the initial matter, but I'm assuming those costs are trivial) then how are these really, really undesirible, but necessary, roles in society going to be filled?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Hey, its from the article so its ontopic!
" One of the chief things that has made America great, after all, is that we are the only country in which enthnicity is not closely linked to nationhood. "
Only? What about Canada? What about Brazil? And I'm sure that others can provide better counter-examples.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I for one welcome our new nanobot overlords!
This reminds me of _Dilbert Future_ where, among other points, Adams says that those Star Trek skin healing devices will never exist because we'd all be sealing each others anuses as practical jokes. Another point he makes: would you trust your coworkers to operate the transporter controls?
Once you read the article, you see there's surprisingly little insight at all, really. The only conjecture on the nanotechnology-driven economy is that there will likely be a scarcity of workers with the necessary skillset, enabling them to earn major $$$ unless the pool of talent increases through either domestic or international education and training.
I would also argue that much of his point regarding the displacement of current workers is well underway. Miniature, communicative sensors already enable industrial equipment to constantly optimize its own performance, reducing the need for manual maintenance and repair work. Warehouse technology is already available to minimize the number of workers needed to move product, especially with the coming of RFID.
In short, I think the more interesting area for discussion lies in which types of products are likely to be displaced by oncoming nanotech, and which are likely to become more in demand (such as the rise in the price of titanium, driven by a wave of Tiger Woods-inspired golf newbies). Hopefully we'll see some followup on those points...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Yes, but in such a world would we really have a need for money anymore?
Yes. Currently, only about a small portion (I think less than 20%) of the economy is manufacturing. Even if we no longer need to use money on that 20%, we still need it for food, services, energy, real estate...
But I think people will be willing to pay for designs, just like people pay for the design and service of software (the "production" is costless). Of course, for many common products there may be open source alternatives...
Tor
God I'm cynical...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If information technology caused a sharp upward leap in the skill- and education requirements of the labor force that has caused a large chunk of our upward leap in income inequality, is not nanotechnology likely to do the same? And is not the pace of economic growth--the spread and use of nanotechnology-generated materials--likely to be constrained by a shortage of the highly educated and skilled materials technicians and programmers that we will need?
I believe that the answer is no
Most people in the IT industry have the job of creating custom solutions for specific customers. The tasks range from the very difficult to the very simple, and therefore the IT industry can employ a work force with a very diverse skill level.
In this respect the so called nano tech industry is very different. The development of a high tech product is very expensive, snd therefore each company has to focus on a small set of products. On the other hand they can sell each product to a wide range of customers. This calls for a small but specialized work force.In conclusion nano tech will not employ the same number of workers with lesser skill.
cowards.
to all editors: feel free to label this response as troll. i just get annoyed by posts which
a) have absolutely no content and are completely unfunded and
b) morons who do not know jack shit about someting.
finally, i would have expected more cojones than an anonymous post. slashdot: do us all a favor and delete comments from the anti-slashdot morons. freedom of speech? where? in the internet? ha!
I previously asked this question (as anonymus coward); How are you supposed to power these things? And got some very good answers. You can't have them lugging around with batteries (they wouldn't be very nano, wouldn't last long and you'll just have to pray that they can find their way back to the loading station to recharge successfully). Submerging them in fuel already has it's own term, "grey goo", at that scale imperfectons will cause "mutations" that just might go amok; How would you monitor that? Nanotech only seem to be usable when either connected to a larger machine and thus not really nanotech only machinery with some very small pieces, or small scale controled, one off experiments not industrialised mass production.
(You'll just have to search for the original thread by yourself, great karma whoring op, and yeah, big thanks to all those who provided great answers, i really wondered about that one)
-Don't trust smart paint!
Rush right over and learn about automation reducing costs and demand for labor. What insights! As for nanotechnology, DeLong seems to offer nothing more useful than a shrug.
If we want to foresee what might happen when the effortless duplication of matter becomes ubiquitous, why not look at a similar situation right now? With computers we can infinitely, and at pretty much no cost, reproduce "things", perhaps in a similar manner to what we might be able to do with real things in a few decades. I imagine we might have much the same problems once we are able to duplicate matter as effortlessly as we copy a file: the vast majority wanting the freedom to copy what they want, and the rich minority fighting to hold on to the power they have.
You've seen those pants that liquids just roll right off, right? Nanofibres make that possible. So we're not making assemblers yet, but we're already finding commercial uses for really small things.
...) had followed the same path/growth, we should now see the very first large-scale applications of Nanotech. Where are these applications? Nowehere to be seen.
That's exactly my point: you are comparing apples and oranges here. Nanofibres are not Nano-Assemblers.
I have said, in my previous message, that there may be applications for some parts or nanotech... Just like there are applications, right now, for limited AI and limited supraconductivity.
But I think that Nanotechnology, and especially the kind of applications that are pushed forward -- such as machines that will cure you of cancer or create a new car each morning out of thin air -- are a pure fantasy.
IMHO, they will not exist for the next hundred years.
if you'd asked me 15 years if I expected to see a computer that could fit completely in my lap with a gigabyte of RAM within my lifetime I'd have laughed at you.
Bingo! You are simply proving my point: this is the difference between Moore's Law and vaporware.
Let us say computers were invented in the 1950s (I know, I know, this is open to debate). When the first models came out, the CEO of IBM at the time famously said that the potential market for computers was "a dozen machines" worldwide.
Twenty years later -- the 1970s: the mini-computer came out and everyone agreed that computers were a good thing . The potential market for computers was in the millions of units.
Twenty years later -- the 1990s: the micro-computer has come of age and there are dozens and dozens of millions of computers worldwide. Almost a computer on every desk in major countries.
Moore's Law is now firmly entrenched in our consciousness, and computers have created unprecedented wealth and opportunities all over the world. Add the Internet to this mix, and you have a very potent technology, indeed.
If Nano-Technology (or AI, or supraconductivity, or cold fusion, or
Don't misunderstand me: Nanotech may be a true force in the future. But I think it will be like electricity, which took close to an entire century to take off. Volta, after all, invented the battery in the 1800s... By this type of time-line, we may see the first interesting applications of Nanotech around... Well... 2080.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Money will not disappear. Assuming that we could build anything, there are still things that keep everything from becoming free. First, all these items probably will be generated from a design that will have to engineered. The new model cars or game consoles will have to be designed and engineered. The pattern fed into a computer and then created. Such pattens will be copyrighted and trademarked. No doubt, there will be similar IP issues as there are today with downloading and conterfiters. Even if items could be replicated from an original without hurting the original lile in dowloading, it will take a decent amount of energy. If you make a banana, that banana will have nutritional value that will be stored energy. that energy has to come from somewhere and it will probably cost soemthign and that money will probalby go back to the the peopel who control the energy corporations. probably the same people who own the oil companies today. Even if there is near limitless energy, unlike downloading today, you still need raw materials. you can't make a set of headphones with gold plated contacts without the gold. Even materials such as copper, aluminium or steel have some scarcity and intrinsic value. I would not doubt if manufacturers started using rare earth elements in their cars and consumer goods just so such items could not be copied directly, a sort of futuristic copy protection. Even given that such technology is possible, it's not for sure that such technology wold be economicaly viable. It may take less manpower and energy to make things the old fashioned way than to use nanotech. A banana tree is already a nanotech machine and we simply might not be able to do it cheaper with a swarm of nanobots. theoretically, we could come up with a Ferrari seed that would grow a Ferrari but that assumes that the proper elements are present in the proper form to be turned into a car. Getting those elements into proper form may be a major issue itself, and by time nanotech has advanced that far, there will probably be other technologies and issues shaping the world more.
A hundred years ago, if you were poor (on average), you were hungry, had no indoor plumbing (never mind electricity), and maybe owned a horse. Today, if you are poor (on average), you have a car, air conditioning, electricity, indoor plumbing, television, and you are overweight. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but that's the health statistic.
My insight about the economics of nanotechnology is that it could create an incredible concentration of wealth, while at the same time defining poor so stratospherically high (owning only two Ferraris rather than twenty because you have no place to put them) that it becomes irrelevant.
Other important points: (note, value != price)
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
When you go to the Gap and buy a sweater, what are you paying for?
- Raw materials. Cotton, lycra, wool. These have to be harvested/mined/synthesized.
- Manufacturing. Conversion of raw materials into a finished product.
- Infrastructure. Transportation, retail outlets, corporate administration.
- Design. Somebody has to have an idea, and sketch out a way of producing a sweater from it.
- Energy. This is implicit in all the other components.
Nanotech would eliminate item #2 completely. With "replicator"-style devices at first in every retail outlet, and eventually in every home, the manufacturing industry disappears completely. Need to build cars? Take a nano-construction device to the location of your retail outlet, let it build a large enough copy of itself to build cars in, and start building cars.Nanotech would reduce, though not eliminate, item #3. Administration is still necessary, but transportation infrastructure goes away. You don't need FedEx when ThinkGeek just sends you the "pattern" for the newest LED-encrusted timewaster.
Raw materials is another industry which is eliminated by nanotech. The only inputs you need are seawater and air, and the products output are atoms of various types. You don't need to buy cotton for a sweater when carbon nanotubes are simpler to build, lighter, and stronger.
Energy could be produced by several Manhattan-sized solar platforms in orbit. Again, all you need to do is send up some nano-bots and rocks, and the job is done.
What's left for humans to do? It could be argued (ala Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age) that the only thing that the machines can't do is think, so human thought becomes a scarce, and therefore pricable, property. Corporate administration, engineering, politics.
Hamster