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,
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
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.
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
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
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!
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
...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
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).
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.