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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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?
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?
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).
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
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 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...
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:
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.
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.
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.