[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[CurtAdams at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/10/03 10:18:19, rhanson at gmu.edu writes:

>1.  It is often assumed that a world of PGMDs is one of marginal costsnear 
>the cost of feedstocks, with the main fixed cost being the cost of 
>design.  But this depends crucially on the PGMDs being typically used well
>below capacity, as most PCs are today.  Most manufacturing plants today
>have a pretty low marginal cost, in terms of how much you save if you 
>operate them below capacity.  But since the plants are used near capacity,
>this makes them little like software or other goods that really do have
>a low marginal cost of production.

Right.  The distinction between nanotechnology (machines able to operate
at very small scales) and Drextech (self-replicating nanotechnology) is
critical here.  If machines have to be constructed then there's no reason to
construct excess (costly) so they will, as you point out, have similar
economics to macromachinery.  Only if they replicate will you get a situation
like biology where the cost of something (in the long term) is basically
the cost to feed it.

Even with self-replication current IP laws would defer most of the effects
for the duration of the patent.  Given the demonstrable clout of major 
patentholders (e.g. Microsoft) they might figure out how to extend patent
indefinitely.

>2.  A big question is by what factor general manufacturing devices are less 
>efficient than specialized manufacturing devices, either in terms of 
>production time, material waste, or final product quality.

That's a great question and I know there's work on this.
Specialization -> efficiency goes back to Adam Smith.   Unfortunately
my vague recollections from reading some of this stuff is that the
results are contentious. Anything quantitative on this would be great.
The hip pop versions of complexity theory certainly encourage the idea
that there *would* be fairly general rules, but I've never seen anything,
so it's probably not there.  There might be some studies from chip design.

>3.  PGMDs embody almost *fully* automated manufacturing - if they need 
>people to step in frequently to diagnose and fix assembly line problems, 
>they become much less attractive.  While many manufacturing plants today 
>are highly automated, it may cost quite a lot to produce designs for fully 
>automated production processes.  So design costs may be a lot higher.

Drextech vs. nanotech again; only if you self-replicate can you erase
your inital design costs.  The trend in the modern world is to higher 
specialization.
The big exception is computer chips.  But, to be fair, to *use* the 
generalized
chip requires a lot of *software* design and I'd expect the same for 
nanotech.  If Drextech doesn't fly, or at least doesn't soon, I would expect
nanobot to be made by methods similar to chip manufacturing, etching and 
layers large numbers of duplicates on a single block.

>4.  The manufacturing fraction of the cost of most consumer goods today is 
>rather small (15%), and only part (~1/3) of those manufacturing costs now 
>are the physical capital, rather than labor and design.  So it is not clear 
>how just lowering those manufacturing costs will have a huge effect on the 
>economy.

Good point; not too much effect there.  I'd think more in terms of nanobots
in consumer hands, able  to exert physical force on scales an in locations
not currently possible.  Dishwashers that can actually scrub; carpets that
can roll themselves up; home under-gum plaque removers; indwelling
periodic catheterization devices; stuff like that.

>5.  If the cost of designing and building an effective self-reproducing 
>PGMD is much higher that of ordinary PGMDs, there might be plenty of 
>ordinary ones around before any self-reproducing ones appear, minimizing 
>the social impact of this transition.

I think manufactured PGMD are almost guaranteed to precede self-reproducing
PGMD.  How can we build something to do something as complex as 
self-replication before we're *very* good at making it?  I think the
transition from manufactured to self-replicating would still have 
*enormous* social implications, though, if it happens.   The values 
for centralization and for current manufacturing stock could go "poof" in
a big hurry, depending on the speed of the transition.