[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Robin Hanson]

On Nov 10, 2003 Curt Adams wrote:
>Right.  The distinction between nanotechnology (machines able to operate
>at very small scales) and Drextech (self-replicating nanotechnology) is
>critical here.  ... 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.

I agree.  There are more implications of self-replication, but it is of 
interest
to figure out the implications of what you call ordinary nanotech as well.

> >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.  ...

I'm not sure I follow you.  Self-replication can spreads out the cost of
designing the self-replicating PGMDs, but not the cost to design other things
one instructs those PGMDs to produce.  Even if I have a cheap PGMD, there
is work to tell it how to produce some other produce, like a shirt.  If the
PGMD typically halts halfway into producing a shirt, and needs a human to
come fix it, the cost of shirts stays pretty high.  So PGMD manufacturing of
shirts needs to be very highly automated to make a big difference.

>... 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.

Sure.  Knowing that nanotech is possible gives you some idea about how far
we can eventually go with a richer economy and better technology.  If you
didn't believe such things would ever be possible, this is news.

>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.

Of course this depends on the speed of self-replication.  If it takes 15 years
for each thing to copy itself, the effect is much smaller.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323