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)."
Well you can always just copy your friends money and then just go buy your own. But I guess they might make that illegal too.
i have worked a bit in the field of nano-decorated surfaces. it is impressive that one can make little nano-sizes arrays of magnetic dots on some substrate . this as so small, that one can view them as single particles which switch homogenously. hence you can study the interactions of little magnetic particles in arrays and do experiments which are very close to theoretical models, such as the Ising model. why should you care? because this nano-patterns seem to be interesting for exchange biased systems. and these seem to be interesting for the recording media industry. but why should you care... this is too geeky anyways. this guy (AKA Prof. Kai Liu) at UC Davis does some interesting research with nanostructures... cool pics and some explanations...
If you want to know more 'bout this nanotechnology that everyone's talking about: Institute of Nanotechnology and National Nanotechnology Initiative
...are very very tiny.
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.
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
As always with new technology threatening old business models expect the formation of Macroscale Manufacturers Association of America. They will furiously fight against communist nanotechnology allowing people to make unauthorised devices etc.
rrw
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
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.