Slashdot Mirror
Diamond Age Approaching?
CosmicDreams writes "The CRN (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) reports that nanofactories (like the ones that were installed in every home in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age) will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years". In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives."
One of the great promises of nanotech are mini-attack bots which can eliminate cancer cells, viruses, germs, etc etc. What, though, will happen when someone comes up with a way to attack cells based on the DNA within? Racial cleansing, removal of unworthies from the pool. It may not happen but it very well could if they don't come up with global policies and laws. (even then...)
Yeah, that's likely far in the future but 50 years ago a desktop computer was impossible.
Trolling is a art,
There has been talk after every revolution that we're going to destroy ourselves. For better or for worse, I sometimes doubt its possible. We're like cockroaches.. even our most fatal diseases end up having a few people immune to them. Every technology comes along and integrates itself into our society. These will too. I'm not really worried.
"almost certainly within 20 years"...so right after those flying cars and human-equivalent AI that are about 10 years off, right?
I've written in my journal about their proclaimed timeline. Excert here:
"The Space Shuttle took less than ten years to design and build, from 1972 to 1981. The atomic bomb took only three years, from 1942 to 1945. Both of these programs involved more new science research and more development of new technologies and techniques than an assembler program would likely require. As analyzed above, they probably cost more too. The main question in estimating a timeline for fabricator development, then, is when it will be technically and politically feasible. There are probably five or more nations, and perhaps several large companies, that could finance a molecular fabricator effort starting in this decade. The technical feasibility depends on the enabling technologies. Even a single present-day technology, dip-pen nanolithography, may be able to fabricate an entire proto-fabricator with sufficient effort. At this point, we have not seen anything to make us believe that a five-year $10 billion fabricator project, starting today, would be infeasible, though we don't yet know enough to estimate its chance of success. Five years from now, we expect that a five-year project will be obviously feasible, and its cost may be well under $5 billion."
source
Journal
Go Gusties
"and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives."
50 B.C. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is!
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
2004 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!
we have been hearing the same stuff since the beginning of history.
Im sure we will be JUST FINE.
In other news, Center Dedicated To Promoting Specific Technology reports that Technology, which is just around the corner, will revolutionize the economy, end world hunger, provide limitless energy, and make your teeth whiter while you sleep.
All in about 20 years, by which you will well have forgotten this press release.
Nothing to see here, move along.
"Molecular nanotechnology will be a significant breakthrough, comparable perhaps to the Industrial Revolution--but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics. The power of the technology may cause two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage. Attempts to control these and other risks may lead to abusive restrictions, or create demand for a black market that would be very risky and almost impossible to stop; small nanofactories will be very easy to smuggle, and fully dangerous. There are numerous severe risks--including several different kinds of risk--that cannot all be prevented with the same approach. Simple, one-track solutions cannot work. The right answer is unlikely to evolve without careful planning." There is a lot of subjective inuendo in this but I am not convinced that this will lead to anything more dangerous than what we have now. I just love when people start crying about the sky falling!
and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen.
Awesome! There is nothing better than a watching limbs battle it for supremecy on a mile oval!
Although I may be more excited about the detached ankle crawl obsticle course.
It is my opinion that since the dawn of literacy, People have been predicting the impending doom caused by new technology. Anyone ever read about how ther were worried about setting the hydrogen in the air on fire when they did the Manhattan Project? Yes, as any boy scout will tell you, being prapared is usually a good thing, but please can the gloom-n-doom because the world isn't going to end just because we made really small machines. *grumble*
Lagito ergo expectabo
"Well, we were pretty sure that Saddam Hussein III had at least 18 microscopic nuclear warheads hidden in the Arabian desert. We've not found them yet, but we will! We will!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Queue in the Grey Goo theorists. Personally, it's probably be to humanities benefit to be turned into a nanomechanic slop if we're irresponsible enough to make this buggers self-replicate without a suicide switch.
I welcome the diamond age - it is nice to finally put the bronze age behind us. I look forward to my diamond ax head.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
While the nano-replicators Stephenson envisions in Diamond Age are pretty cool the two things not well discussed were the source of raw materials (glossed over) and the power source (not discussed at all). We've still got a long way to go before these things can be worked out.
-The whole world is going to hell and I'm driving the bus...
"Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
Burbank, CA - The CRP (Center for Responsible Predictions) reports that articles
about nanotechnology (especially ones that mention Neil Stephenson and/or Eric Drexler)
will "almost certainly" contain over-optimistic estimates of the arrival of nanoassemblers.
In short, these claims will be far enough in the future to protect the prognosticators
from immediate ridicule, while still appearing chillingly close.
How exactly does one write code for the placement of billions of molecules? Is it algorithmic or a huge array?
peace,
-Grokent
It seems like these days someone manages to predict all the new tech before it comes out. Has it always been this way? Did people see the atom bomb coming before it did? Because I have to say, this prediction thing is really taking the fun out of everything. Rather then being plesantly suprised by new things I am just pissed that I can't buy stuff I'm reading about.
Really though, everything is going to cause the end of the world within 20 years these days. Did you know 15% of the world's methane comes from cow farts? And that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases? And as Al Gore said back in the early 70's, we'll be dead by the late 90's if we don't stop driving cars. And everyone wants to blow everyone up nowadays anyway, so...screw it. Have a drink, sit back, get yourself a pretty friend, and get a perspective that takes things from scary to amusing.
Your wish about laws and treaties - or rather, effective laws and treaties - ain't gonna happen.
Anything man CAN do, man WILL do. Regardless of if rules are in the way.
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists. Anything that carries a reward will get done, by somebody, somewhere. The greater the potential reward, the more people will be attempting it.
Whether it is legal is secondary to many enough people that it won't really matter whether it is.
Could I get one of those nanofactories installed in my flying car?
The promise of nano-manufacturing puts into perspective a lot of the issues we face with copyright of information today. Will the motor companies become the next RIAA when it is possible to make a perfect copy of any car? What will Coca-Cola say when I can nano-replicate coke from water and hydrocarbons?
I can almost imagine a future a where we could have unlimited resources, but the necessary machines are forced by law to be user hostile monsters extorting fees from the user anytime something they make comes close to a perpetually copyrighted object.
Or will people finally realize that when the means of production are endless, human means of invention drive themselves?
Riots on earth and complete banning of nanotechnology when it is learned by the masses that it is possible to engineer them to harm humans. Of course, on the up-side was improving the ability of humans to withstand more natural threats.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Fascinating that this movie should become so topical again.
Dr. Edward Morbius: In times long past, this planet was the home of a mighty, noble race of beings who called themselves the Krel. Ethically and technologically they were a million years ahead of humankind, for in unlocking the meaning of nature they had conquered even their baser selves, and when in the course of eons they had abolished sickness and insanity, crime and all injustice, they turned, still in high benevolence, upwards towards space. Then, having reached the heights, this all-but-divine race disappeared in a single night, and nothing was preserved above ground.
(I'd hate to give away the ending, but it's extremely relevant to this story! Rent it and see for yourself!)
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Politicians: Yay. More legislative work means we'll forever be yammering about stuff.
Missionaries: Yay. End world hunger. I can go home and stop building bridges.
Eco-groupies: Boo. This will destroy the environment.
Engineers: Screw the consequences, I want ot play with one! Less talk, more tech!
Your Rights Online Whiners: We have to pass laws NOW about this technology. Because there's nothing like an archiac law for a technology we can't understand the ramifications of until it's been used for many years.
Console Junkies: Wha...? Can this wait? I'm almost through to the boss...
Babies: YES! With this power I alone will rul - WAAAAAAAAIMHUNGRYAAAAAAAA!
-Adam
This will never happen period.
Why?
Because of the tremendous shift in social power such a device would create. If you think the MPAA and RIAA are bad, imagine the stance of the entire corporate world to these devices being in the hands of consumers.
Not to mention the fear this ability would create within government circles.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
If you think its been bad with the RIAA and MPAA going after people, wait until you see GE, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, pharma companies, etc. start to take action when people are duplicating their products for a fraction of the cost without them getting a single cent for it.
I personally think this is great, as it would put many things within reach of people who would never have had a chance of ever being able to afford those things, but the ethical issues are the same as they are today, only perhaps escalated due to the increased value of the things you could duplicate.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
debeers uses metallic spectra formed when the diamonds (synthetic) are subject to pressure vessel contaminants (mostly metal particles) to detect real from synthetic. BTW, debeers has no process for identifying the new CVD processed diamonds which do not require metal pressure vessels and hence have no metallic spectra.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has come up with a proof of concept nanotech conveyor belt. When an electrical current is applied, a carbon nanotube acts as a conveyor with Iridium atoms. They are moved up and down the tube without losing a single one. Read more here.
A step closure to that assembler. :D
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Diamond life, lover boy.
We move in space with minimum waste and maximum joy.
He's a smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The article talks about how a suitcase of equipment could create a village-sized industrial revolution. But this technology is, at least potentially, post-industrial. That is to say, it can be used on the small scale, making advanced technology available in a way which is independent of big corporations and large-scale manufacturing facilities. This is a huge thing.
If it is allowed to develop along these lines, it will mean the restructuring of our entire society, in a way which I and many others have been waiting and hoping for for some time now. It will mean we can have our cake and eat it too: we get all the benefits of advanced technology, without all the horrible detriments of the hegemony of megacorps. Whohoo!
Unfortunately, I doubt this will be allowed to happen, at least not at first. Here's a prediction: as soon as this becomes imminant, we will see the massive implementation of extremely restrictive measures to control it. These will be adopted in the name of security, but incidentally they will also have the effect of making it virtually impossible to use this technology independently, without relying on megacorporate support. This will probably mean continued widespread poverty in the third world, but we will accept it out of fear.
But at least the potential will be there.
On a completely unrelated note: most human-scale products would consist almost entirely of empty space
Actually, to be precise, everything consists almost entirely of empty space. "The solid parts of this rock, the neutrons, quarks, protons and electrons, compose only one quadrillianth of its total volume... you could pulverize that mountain and sift through it like breadcrumbs for the rest of your natural life, and you would never, ever, find... this!" --Buccaroo Banzai.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
First of all, I'd like to point out the article doesn't make any mention of the substantive amount of energy one of these molecular assemblers would undoubtedly require. If I understand the science even remotely, will it not take energy to break and form atomic bonds that are not naturally occuring? I understand chemical means can be used, but those chemicals need to be manufactured as well. Ignoring such a huge part of the problem doesn't give this article much credibility. Does it matter how far we push technology if we don't have the means to power it?
Aside from that, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the source of the article. The CRN FAQ doesn't inspire much confidence. The two directors have a single undergrad degree between them. I appreciate their enthusiasm in promoting the discussion of nanotechnology and its implications, but I think I'd take it a bit more seriously from a more credible source.
It was an interesting read, but sounded more like wishful thinking from a sci-fi fan than from someone who has a grasp of all the issues that factor into such a huge leap forward for technology.
we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
Where's all the dicussion about how this technology could reduce current stress?
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
I say bring it on. The consequences will sort themselves out as they always have upon previous technology.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong? Can you believe they would have made the correct choice if they could have caused researchers to halt experiments on such common materials as antibiotics?
-Adam
Maybe the people that can afford it in the future will have scads of nanobots in their bodies, patrolling it.
The human body will turn into the next battleground, and nano-armies will be the ones fighting on it.
After all, if bio-terrorism is going in that direction, someone will develop counter-measures.
Whole armies fighting between the pores of your skin and in your tissues - weird!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
back when I first heard about nano this was my first thought. I tried to get my friends into a discussion about what ethical and sociological questions might arise from such a tech and they were all like "no, no you are worrying too much!" Most other people I heard talk about, even some Nanotech Professors seemed to enjoy the topic as a thoughtexperiment but never really took the threads serious. It was more that they enjoyed it as a theoretical construct. But this stuff scares the shit out of me. I would love to see it arrive since it is really the only way construction should be done, but on the other hand THIS could be the reason for the "Where is anybody?" theory that asks why all intelligent alien civilisations might be silent. Not Nuclear Weapons...
why is it always a tradeoff between good and bad?
...by the year 2000 we'll have flying cars and whole cities on the moon."
While this may be comming in our future, I think 20 years is a little optimistic. People have difficulty predicting technology 2 years in advance, much less 20.
Yeah, and nuclear energy will make electricity "too cheap to meter" and people will be zipping around in flying cars by the year 2000. Am I the only one get gets sick and tired of the fantastical future promises of technology?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
The The first advanced nanotech conference is about to occur and Eric Drexler is going to be steward ushering it in. I wish I could afford to go, you are welcome to donate, heh I'm allowed to panhandle as I live in a place called hippyland amongst dirty hippies that do it to me (that makes this right, heh). I will be reading Drexler's book Engines of Creation as soon as I am home long enough to get the damn fedex in this 2 fedex truck town.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
...My favorite sentence, found halfway down this page:
:-D
A large spacecraft design must account for fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, vibration and resonance on many time scales, avionics and other control, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, combustion dynamics, hydraulics, cryogenics, and biomedical issues. (Thanks to an anonymous poster on Slashdot for pointing this out.) (Emphasis mine.)
If they're using Slashdot as a source for information, how can we possibly take them seriously?
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular amount of Ricin, just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
DeBeers had a method for finding manafactured diamonds... it worked on the sub-atomic level, at that scale its indistingushable from a natrually formed on to the naked eye
A tad OT, but I'll respond anyway...
"So what?"
I have no interest whatsoever in supporting the DeBeers cartel. I care about results, not "Some oppressed African child died to get this small rock to me". If vapor deposition of carbon can make a diamond cheaper than child labor, good. Screw DeBeers.
Of course, it really amuses me that people buy diamonds at all (for non-industrial purposes). "I love you, here, have a small clear chunk of rock. Without destroying it, you can't really tell it apart from anyof a hundred other kinds of small clear rock, but this paper says it costs more". You want to make her happy, spend "two months' salary" as a downpayment on a parcel of land, and give her a pebble from that set into a ring. More meaningful, more useful, and you can't lose it down the sink.
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled... Better even than the classic frontier snake-oil salesmen. At least some of their products worked, if purely by accident (ie, cinchona bark extract, aka quinine, for malaria).
Assembly lines of nanomachines on IC-like substrates, supplied with external power, though, may actually be a useful manufacturing technology for small things.
I'm more worried about synthetic biology. So far, bioengineering has been a very crude trial and error process. Direct design of viruses and enzymes, let alone bigger organisms, doesn't work yet. But there's steady progress, and no reason it shouldn't work. That's going to mean designer diseases.
If the Diamond Age comes to fruition, I imagine that our expansion into space would take a whole new look.
Imagine, if you will, teams of people around the world contributing either CAD/CAM files that painstakingly reproduce technical drawings and assembly instructions for things like Saturn V rockets OR teams that design simplified heavy rockets that take advantage of nano reinforcement to make strong launchers with few moving parts.
Once the designs have been reviewed and tested, I imagine that either hobbyist or impromptu launch sites would start sprouting up and eventually people would start lobbing payloads into orbit. During this time, I'm sure there would be a frantic effort by the government to either outlaw or control the technology, but eventually it might reach a point where a committed individual might:
1. Design a modular living space
2. Go out to some island.
3. Pour a nano-construction farm out onto the beach
4. Sit back and wait for it to finish building a launch pad and Saturn-V or Energia class booster out of materials nano-mined from the ground.
5. Check the CRC on the structure or whatever it is a nano-inspection system would do.
6. Have it fueled by a system that breaks down the seawater into fuel and oxidizer.
7. Have it launch part 1 of his new home into orbit.
8. Rinse, repeat steps 4-8 until all components are in orbit (and docked, why not?)
9. Make one last man-rated launcher and put him/herself along with family up to dock with their new digs and take off.
If the main cost is the design time, there are certainly enough space-minded engineers and contributors out there to write up working specs and enough people to validate the designs. As the technology advances, the simulation of the constructs will become more accurate. If the construction cost is minimal, then the sky is quite literally the limit.
There will always be "rogue nations." To North Korea, we're the rogue nation. To us, it's North Korea. I think we're right, but whatever.
Both of us will weaponize nanotech, treaties or no.
What we have to do ASAP, is develop countermeasures. There *will* be a nanotech arms race. Otherwise, "rogue nations" will realize the age-old desire to reduce their enemies to bloody soup. The arms race is ok, so long as the defense keeps up against the offense, and we can get a nice, heady detente.
Unless this advocacy group has some really convincing argument, I don't see how they can say, "It's going to be like Diamond Age, except that for us, treaties will work." Explain why treaties will work. Neal Stephenson already explained why they wouldn't. I liked his argument.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
So nanofactories will replace corporate factories and this is _bad_ to the current power structure so government won't let it happen so we're doomed to be slaves to the heartless System.
I have an idea. Forget about the nanofactories for now. Go to the hardware store and purchase some basic tools. Saw, hammer, the like. Find some suitable dried wood, old fences are a good supply (get permissions first!) Buy a book on woodworking. Try a few projects.
And never buy another stick of furniture. See who cares. Other than family and friends nobody will care. And you'll have fun.
And this: Buy a sewing machine, pick up broadcloth on the cheap. Make clothes. Other than family and friends nobody will care. You'll have fun.
Learn to cook. Learn to repair engines. Learn to garden. Learn to teach your children. Walk. Ride a bike.
You are small, compared to a corporation and a government you are nano-scale. Your life is tiny, your labors are tiny, your production is tiny, your marketing reach is zero to none. You are a factory, but on the nano-scale. Make what you need yourself, say good-bye to Nike, and fall from sight.
And you won't give a thought to what happens with nanofactories 20 or 30 or 80 years from now, because you will _be_ a nanofactory.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
An unintelligent nano-conveyor belt is a far cry from little nano-bots that run around intelligently assembling a product at the molecular level. I think the basic misconception of nano-technology is that it is all about tiny robots running around doing pre-programmed tasks. When it is really just "very small technology." Another thing people dont' understand is that we already have nano-technology in use, but it isn't nearly as glamorous as people would think.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Much of this nanotech will overlap with biosciences patents, as biomechanical structures get emulated, discovered/invented, patented, and deployed in commercially strategic ways. The compensation for use of this tech will be horrendously complicated, and its inclusion in products (or design frameworks) will be subject to all kinds of IP battles. What is good for you and me, society, the biosphere, and the mineral planet, will be secondary to these concerns, since people will be jockeying to be the next B.Gates.
If ever there was a concern about analogies to closed API's and the bugginess produced by these kinds of closed-source strategies, it's here, where the molecular engines can make drastic and disastrous changes, that we need to pay attention to opening things up.
Access is the core issue. I suspect that software to model this stuff is the first place to start. Easy for me to say, I'm not a programmer!
Damn those pesky terrorists
No, it's not. But I can virtually guarantee that lots of ineffective ones will happen, and probably very soon. My guess is that these will not succeed in preventing outlaws, "rogue" nations, and "terrorists" from obtaining this technology, but what they will do is prevent it from ever falling into the hands of the real enemy, the average joe consumer. This will have the effect of continuing to protect the elite from the people, while enhancing the threat of violence, thus providing an excuse for ever tighter means of control.
Isn't our society fun?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The whole point is that it costs a lot. It shows that you made a sacrifice for her.
Exactly... So why go for something useless to both people?
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
Perhaps the part I don't "get" involves having an SO who would rather have a $10k rock than just about anything else. I have a quite happy long-term relationship (despite the implications of another respondant), and neither she, nor any of my previous SOs would have wanted something very expensive but useless. If they had, somehow I doubt I would have found them interesting in the first place (so I admit I may have a selection bias in my sample).
Put another way... Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO. But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so? "Can't buy love", and all...
The 20th century was incredible. We acquired the ability to produce food and goods to satisfy the needs of everyone on earth, though we did not make them available to everyone.
We have had two major power struggles during the 20th century. At the beginning, production was 'difficult', so those who could produce were able to 'call the shots'. WW II was a war of production and it was wonn by the side that was able to produce the most bombs and bullets.
Since then, productivity has continued to improve. Production is no longer the 'hard part'. The challenge during the past few decades has been to convince people to buy. Hence marketing has become king. Between 3rd world labor and automation, production costs have fallen dramatically. For most products, the major costs are Marketing & Distribution and R&D.
But the smart folks have recognized that the 21st century will be even more unsettling than the 20th century. Computer controlled extraction of natural resources and production (including nanotechnology) can drive manufacturing costs to almost zero. (Go read 'A for Anything' , by Damon Knight) With the Internet, we will be able to distribute the knowledge of how to produce. This will eliminate most of the challenges associated with distribution (since it will be possible to do most production locally, so there will be little money to be made there either, unless artificial controls and impediments are implemented.
This is why there's such a fight for intellectual property rights. Only by controlling the knowledge of how and what to produce can power be maintained by those who value it. By the middle of the 21st century, the major cost of any material item will be the 'intellectual property' charge.
With production automated, almost everyone who is employed will be working in service jobs by 2050. And then it gets more interesting.
As AI research progresses, we will be able to build robots capable of doing service jobs. The health care crisis will be 'solved' during the second half of the 21st century. Robots will replace, not only orderlies and nurses, but physicians and surgeons, too. The cost of producing these robots will be minimal. The valuable commodity will be the knowledge of how to program them to do what you want them to do.
By the end of the 21st century, creativity -- the creation of intellectual property -- will be the only currently known role that will still be the domain of us humans. And the control of that creativity is what is being fought for now.
That's the power struggle going on now. It's just started.
One more thing. By the end of the 21st century, molecular genetics will have progressed to the point where most people will be able to live almost forever. Imagine living forever in a world where production and services basically cost nothing. The only thing of value will be control of the intellectual property behind it all. Imagine a world where material items sell for a dollar each and services are provided for ten cents an hour. It could be paradise if you have the money to pay for what you want. But if you don't, how do you compete against such prices?
The challenge as we approach the 22nd century will be to rethink the issues of access. How will we reward innovation while making it possible for most people to survive and live reasonably good lives?
Because, if most people cannot pay for those goods and services, there will be a revolution. If that revolution succeeds, those who were on top will be gone. If the revolution fails, the whole economic system will collapse from lack of customers.
Hang onto your hat. It's going to be a wild ride.
From: http://www.ProjectsDoneRight.com/pdr/pdrPapersIP.a sp
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled...
Actually, that's about right. DeBeers' version of the "diamond age" is an impressive feat of marketing combined with agressive market control. It wasn't really that long ago that the "diamonds are a girl's best friend" meme was instilled in large portions of world culture.
But DeBeers' is hardly the only one who supports an entire industry with marketing tactics. For a real head-shaping check out "The Merchants of Cool" . A rather eye-opening tutorial on modern marketing tactics, and the whole progam is available online now...
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled.
Agreed. Although, like a sibling post said, if I guy gave me a lower-quality fake (like cubic zirconia) diamond ring then I'd be a tad insulted. Not because it's not a diamond, but because it's a fake diamond, which symbolically doesn't speak well for the engagement. That being said, some of the manufactured diamonds I've heard about lately that are virtually indistinguisable from mined diamonds would be perfectly fine for me. They may be man-made, but those sound like "real" diamonds to me. Who cares if they're made in a lab? Who cares if they're cheaper? I don't need a guy to break himself trying to buy me an engagement ring. If he really wants to get me a diamond and he can save a ton of money by buying a man-made one, then go for it. Though, truth to be told, I'd rather not have a diamond. The tradition is artificial, diamond's aren't nearly as rare as the companies would have us believe, and frankly, there are lots of other gems out there that I think are far prettier. I'm a fan of color myself. One of my aunts has a sapphire engagement ring. Another one has an unpolished emerald (it looks like jade). I think those are tons prettier than my mom's plain ol' diamond (but I ain't tellin' her that...)
Guys, if your gal's educated and fairly inteligent she'll probably have no problem if you give her something other than a diamond. (Note the word "probably"... I can only speak for myself and if you don't wanna take that risk of royally pissing her off, I don't blame you. ;) )
Back in 1999 the Foresight Institute released the first version of the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. . These guidelines, interestingly enough, ended up in the US Congresses' recent (2003) bill on Molecular manufacturing / nanontechnology studies.
One point that the F.I. makes that often gets missed in discussion of nano: molecular nanotechnology != self-replicating machines. As Eric Drexler writes: "Much has been made of a concern I raised in 1986, under the name "gray goo" -- a hypothetical scenario involving runaway replicators. Building fully self-replicating machines would be difficult, however, and building machines that could replicate without external help would be more difficult still. Current work in the field shows that it will be easier and more efficient to develop molecular manufacturing without building any self-replicating machines at all."
One measure of the existence or success of a field is the jobs available in it: jobs certainly exist in 2004. By 2014 it should be really interesting. Another measure is "does the field have its equivalent of Slashdot?" Yup, Nanodot.
The F.I.'s website has much good material: FAQs, Reviews of nano for the technical or non-technical reader, reviews of policy issues and more. In their policy section they discuss how to avoid high-tech terrorism: it involves more nano, not less. Another of their essays talks about 6 lessons from 9/11 that should be applied to molecular nanotechnology:
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
There's something about having a tangible thing on your hand that you can wave around at people to say "look, I'm engaged!" It's a lot harder to bring a collection of 1000 DVDs to your parents house in order to show them you're gonna get hitched. ;)
I did like the "mounting a rock from the land you bought" idea, though. That's unique and cool, along with being tangible. :)
What is a transhuman? A transhuman is a human in transition. We are transhuman to the extent that we seek to become posthuman and take action to prepare for a posthuman future. This involves learning about and making use of new technologies that can increase our capacities and life expectancy, questioning common assumptions, and transforming ourselves ready for the future, rising above outmoded human beliefs and behaviors. [SNIP]
What is transhumanism? Transhumanism was given its first definition and characterization by Dr. Max More (in Extropy The Journal of Transhumanist Thought #6, 1990) "Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life [..]. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies[...]"
What is the Singularity? As defined by Vernor Vinge, 1986: The postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotech, neuroscience, AI, and perhaps uploading) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. Vinge also wrote: "The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence." Transhumanists vary considerably in their view of the exact nature and definition of a Singularity, and not all transhumanists accept it as a useful notion. For good information on the Singularity from two advocates of the idea, we suggest you visit Raymond Kurzweil's KurzweilAI.net site and The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the work of its fellow, Eliezer Yudkowsky.
If you can't afford a natural diamond, then don't buy one at all (a fake symbol is worse than no symbol at all)...
Send me your work phone # and I'll give you a call... you know, with Mother's Day and all I thought I'd go waste some more money on something that has no utility. Yep, I'm convinced that the boost to that special woman's self esteem is worth the cost in tears and blood that the diamond cartels extract from those children in the mines.
I see what you are getting at, but it depends on the woman. 1000 DVDs isn't necessarily useful either. What is a movie after all? Some thing you watch for entertainment right? Well maybe some women get more entertainment out of looking at a shiny diamond on their finger than a movie on a tv.
While we are on the subject, I agree that any self-sacrificing gift is worth while, but the point is that it should be a sacrifice. Buying jewlery that costs next to nothing because it is synthetic isn't much of a sacrifice, which is what I was trying to get at.
As for the $10K rock comment: It is just like anything else, who wouldn't want to have the best? Does a geek go out and buy the latest most expensive computer because it has the highest value, or because it grants the highest braging rights? I would guess that it is the latter. The more expensive the diamond, the more a woman can lord it over their friends (in the same good natured way that geeks lord their computer specs over their friends).
Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO.
The point is that it isn't just a trinket to everyone. Why does it have to have utility to be a desireable possession?
But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so?
It isn't about buying her what she wants. It is about giving a gift she doesn't expect. There should be no strings attached. Women shouldn't beg for jewlery or it doesn't mean anything anyway (it isn't very much of a gift if you have to be told to give it).
You know that not all diamonds come from Africa don't you? I bought my girlfriend a diamond solitare from a mine in Canada. I didn't check into the working conditions there, but I would guess that Canada doesn't go in for child labor.
As for the salesman comment... Maybe you have never tried to give a woman a gift that has no utility (particularly if it isn't even a special occasion), but I can tell you that it is a very easy way to brighten her day.
I pray to my diety that these nanofactories do not get conntcted to any type of computer network. If they are, you just KNOW that there will be some kind of virus or worm that will attack these nanofactories and have them create any kind of nastiness.
If this comes to pass, the next computer virus could very well kill you.
I can see the virus threat warning...
========
W64.nanodeath
Discovered on: April 2, 2044
W64.nanodeath is a mass-mailing worm that attempts to spread using mail and file-sharing networks. The worm also opens a backdoor on an infected computer.
When the worm runs, it activates all network attached Microsoft NanoFactory(TM) systems in the local area network. The affected Microsoft NanoFactory systems will randomly produce MicroSoft MicroMachines(TM) designed to do one of the following:
* Destroy human flesh
* Destroy bone matter
* Destroy human brain tissue
* Produce plush penguin toys
Also Known As: Die.MSUsers.Die, Long.Live.Linux
Type: Worm
Infection Length: varies
Systems Affected: Windows 2020, Windows 2016, Windows 2013, Windows 2010.
Systems Not Affected: Everything Else
There are two problems with consumer manufacturing (nano or not):
...and the designs for the fab itself is NOT very likely to be on that list.
1) creating and selling the fabricators is not a business model. Once you get a few seeded out there, people will just make copies of the fabs themselves, and sell them to others, until the market is so saturated that people just give them away.
2) Regardless of whether today's police state has faded, the potential of the common people to make their own weapons, be they blades, guns, explosives, or other chemical dangers will be too much for government to tolerate.
The solution that I think will likely be deployed is a "Trusted Manufacturing" or "Trusted Fabrication" architecture much like we already see today with "Trusted Computing" and Digital Rights Management systems.
You will not be able to own a fab - you'll rent it, like your cable box, or your music CDs (*cough*) today. Tampering with someone else's property is obviously illegal (not that it will stop everyone - see below). Furthermore, the fabs will only be permitted to produce goods whose designs are whitelisted - ie, digitally signed - as "approved" by either the manufacturer, some industry consortium, or some government agency whose job it will be to thoroughly review designs to insure they are "safe" from abuses 1) or 2) above.
Unlike current TC designs like the TCPA, there will be no "taking ownership", where consumers will be able to choose whom to trust or not trust about what signed software/products to run/produce. That decision will be pre-decided when you get the fab, and you won't be permitted to change it "for public safety".
Not that the law will stop everyone. Someone will find holes in the system, and they will break it. One of the first things they will do will be to make an unrestricted fab, which will make the rest. They'll spread, underground, to anyone willing to take whatever risks are inherent in having one. Considering that the perceived dangers of possessing an unrestricted desktop fab are MUCH higher than the perceived dangers of having an unrestricted media player, I think it's likely that the legal consequences of being discovered with one will be harsher, potentially branding perpetrators as "terrorists" despite having intentions equivalent to wanting to play your own DVDs on your own Linux box in a world full of copyright piracy.
As usal, coporate/governemnt restrictions on consumer products won't be uncircumventable, but they will keep circumvention out of public life. On balance, I think such a state of affairs to help to make the transition more manageable - both for the good things, and the bad.
"will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years."
So will this be before or after viable fusion reactors?
It doesn't have to be that way though
Well, no, it doesn't, but the problem is, it can be, and almost certainly will be.
I've already talked about the religious and evolutionary perspectives, so let me talk about the political perspective. I would think this would be obvious on its face, but here we go...
The trouble with Eugenics is that it can, has, and almost certainly will again, be manipulated for political purposes. It is inevitable, I think, as long as our society continues on its current course, that it will be. I'm OK with that, actually, I'm prepared for the massive chaos and destruction we're in the process of unleashing on ourselves, and if not, oh well, that's evolution in action. But I intend to go kicking and screaming all the way. Even if resistance is futile, it's still important.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, things like this will inevitably be used to enforce some artificial standard of "normality" on the human population. The reason for this is that increasing industrialization and specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie (Durkheim). Another way of putting this is that people don't like being slaves to a faceless machine. Thus as technology increases, it will obviously be in the best interests of that machine to use technology to mould human nature to make it fit better into our way of life. This will happen, whether we like it or not, regardless of the stories we tell ourselves to reconcile ourselves to it. Mark my words, or in the words of our illustrious Governator, "hear me now and believe me later."
I have the same problem with the way we use prescription drugs. There are commercials on TV now for the use of Zoloft to treat "social anxiety disorder." I'm sure you've seen them. WTF? This used to be called "shyness." It is a character trait, and one which I find rather appealing. Now suddenly it's a disorder, and we are expected to medicate ourselves for it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zoloft should be illegal, people have a right to do this to themselves if they want, but I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Instead of admitting that our way of life is fundamentally incompatible with human nature, we are undertaking to simply modify human nature to fit with our way of life. We create these "disorders" by living in insanely overcrowded, mechanical, dehumanizing conditions, then we treat the symptoms with drugs.
The same thing will be done with genetic engineering. Oh, sure, it will start with the clear-cut cases, just as the use of prescription drugs in psychiatry did, things like schitzophrenia, or like surgery did, treating cancer and so forth. But then, before long, you have people going under the knife to get their voice modified so that it sounds younger. Where do you draw the line? The distinction between "good" and "bad" uses of human modification technology is, like all other distinctions, arbitrary. But in a society such as ours, it is enevitable that they will be used to keep us asleep, to keep us under control, to make us conform, so that we will fulfil our role in the machine without question and be happy little slaves.
Have you ever read "A Brave New World"?
Anyway, that's a very quick and dirty version of the argument, there's a lot more to it than that of course, but I think you can get the general idea.
"It's one of those things we wish we could un-invent" -- Nicholas Cage in "The Rock"
"This species has amused itself to death." -- Roger Waters
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I work in nanotechnology, and while it might be possible that in 20 years the world will have gone to hell, I highly dount it will be because of this work that no one is doing. The actual work being done in nanotech, is another matter.
These guys make molecular manufacturing sound easy. I'd like to see them try it! None of this is easy, and I would say most of us think molecular manufacturing isn't even possible. The set up described in Drexler's book is not attainable. There are no big names in nanotechnology working on molecular manufacturing, but plenty working on lots of other things.
There is more than enough to be worried about with what is ACTUALLY being done with nanotechnology. It's insulting to those of us in the field, that our research on gas detectors, bio-electronics, nerve regerneration, nanometer transistors, pathogen detectors and drug delivery is deemed so umimportant that it's not even worth talking about. Moreover, there are tremendous issues involved in those projects, which no one is talking about. Any warning about ACTUAL dangers in nanotechnology is being drowned out by ignorant shrills simply seeking the spotlight.
We need a debate on what sensitive explosives sensors are going to do not only for security, but for farmers, scientests and anyone who works around incriminating chemicals. I don't want to be taken in for questioning every time I board a plane. We need to talk about what happens with illegal drugs and steroids when drugs can be delivered to a specific organ and leave the rest of the body largely unaffected. We need to talk about what it really means for education and health when computers are small enough to fit inside the body. The reason I read slashdot is because every once in a while these things come up here. There are plenty of large moral issues literally around the corner, but almost no one is paying attention! Live in the present, it is a fascinating time, and we have many, many unanswered questions.
Debating how to prevent a fictional future arms race depending on a scientific advance many scientests doing the work don't believe will happen in our lifetimes is plain stupid in comparison.
To be fair, I think molecular manufacturing WILL be seen in our lifetime, but it will not be cheap, nor easy, nor fast. Go ahead and calculate how long it will take to make one kilogram of something at 1000000 atoms a second, it's around 1 trillion years. Plain old wet chemistry (aka "bottom up nanotechnology") still has a lot of time and use left. For the first 10 or 20 years molecular manufacturing is around no one will know what to do with it because it will not be this holy grail the media has worked it into. This is based on the history of science, from the steam engine to microscopes capable of atomic resolution. We've always set our sights on these goals, only to be surprised at their implimentation. It's always taken the big breakthroughs a decade or two to get used.