[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Alejandro Dubrovsky]

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:28, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:03:06AM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> > Would production time really be a very important factor?  Unless the
> > production of items extends to multi-day efforts, i don't see this
> > affecting much at the consumer end.  I agree with both other factors.
> 
> If we have a device with a self-replication rate of a couple of days, it can
> clearly double that output in the same time frame. The limit is feedstock and
> energy, but we obviously can fab photovoltaics, rectenna arrays, processing
> plants, space transporters (planetary surface is a scarce resource, there's a lot of
> volume, minables and solar flux/square area in the local system, though).
> 
I was sticking to non-self-replicating. 

> 
> > > ordinary ones around before any self-reproducing ones appear, minimizing 
> > > the social impact of this transition.
> 
> Please tell me how the social impact of superhuman AI runaway can be
> minimized by prior availability of chess computers and video games.
> 
Time that would have been spent on developing AI is sucked by the other
two, therefore retarding the appearance of runaway AIs and thus giving
nanotech a chance to come around and lift us a couple of million ks out
of the event's epicenter 

> What kind of analysis is that? If if if. If pigs would fly, what would be
> impact of precipitating feces on aquaculture, and erosion of high-tension
> masts? I mean, really.
> 
Not only that, but deaths due to dropping dead pigs would have surpassed
SARS deaths last year, prices of house insurance would be much higher,
and the first thing built around an airport would be a scarepig.


> > Depends on the cost of the ordinary PGMD.  If it can be made by
> > specialised factories for the cost of say, a car or 3d-printer or lower,
> > then i'd imagine it would reach saturation quite quickly (using
> > "saturation" quite loosely, and estimating at one per house).  (btw, all
> > this referring to the US and other rich nations only).  Also, it'd be a
> > very contrived case for the PGMDs not to have at least a partial
> > positive feedback effect on the lowering of their cost.
> 
> Why don't we just wait, and see? A precursor to a nanolithoprinter is lot
> like an inkjet on steroids. It only fabs slowly, has very limited structure and
> material repertoire, and is expensive, as it can't self reproduce. The impact
> of this device in straightforward analysis should be nil, right? Sure, as
> long as we assume it can't produce molecular circuitry. What is the impact if
> Jane and Joe Doe could fab their prototypes for about the same costs it takes
> to print a color photo? I'm not sure how classical economic theory handles
> a series of punctuated equilibria. There's extensive documentation available,
> though: the fossil record. 
> 
Of course we'll wait and see, nothing else to be done.  No harm in
playing what if meanwhile though.  
alejandro