[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Dan Clemmensen]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> On 11/15/2003, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> I think the medical stuff , while it sounds good, is not relevant. 
>> There is a huge amount of additional design work to get from design 
>> of "hardware" (computers, furniture, etc.) to design of "bioware" of 
>> any type.
>> I also think that energy-generation products and energy conservation 
>> products are more fundamentally important, and more feasible. Am I 
>> correct in assuming that energy is a fairly major component of 
>> current economic models?
>
> Energy is probably around 1-2% of GDP, while medicine is about 14% in 
> the US.  Solar energy collection doesn't need atomic precision - what 
> other energy generation do you have in mind?

I think that the step from "hardware" to "bioware" is extreme. The 
social impact in  the "hardware" space will be extreme even without 
"bioware." The impact of "hardware" on medicine will be fairly profound 
by itself, allowing for massive improvements in existing medical 
hardware and the creation of new medical devices a the micro level, even 
without "bioware."(autonomous systems at the nano level.)

Solar, geothermal, and sophisticated conservation do not depend on 
atomic precision. However, they use low-density energy sources, so they 
require more capital equipment per Kwh. Thus, the enabler here is the 
(assumed) dramatic reduction in capital cost made possible by nanotech, 
rather than atomic precision itself.

I would note that atomic precision and ultra-strong materials 
(diamondoid MNT) may enable the design of small (household) fusion 
plants. This is easier than medical nanotech, but I think solar, 
geothermal, and conservation are easier.   (PLEASE NOTE: I do not 
advocate solar, geothermal, or sophisticated conservation with today's 
technology, so this is not some knee-jerk environmentalist rant. With 
today's technology these approaches degrade the environment except in 
special cases, because the environmental costs associated with the 
capital costs more than counter the gains.)

>>> ... As with PCs today, open source product design and file sharing 
>>> of stolen product designs could become issues.
>>
>> ... The term "stolen" is value-laden.
>
> Perhaps, but I don't see another term that so connotes the issue.  I 
> grant that file-sharing of copyrighted material may be a good thing, 
> but it is clearly theft under current law and widely recognized as such. 

"Copyright infringement is theft" is RIAA propaganda, similar to 
"abortion is murder." Copyright laws are very different from the laws 
governing larceny, with different sanctions.  I don't think we should 
disobey the copyright laws, or the larceny laws. I do think we should 
change some of the copyright laws.

>
>
>> I think that the cost of energy is a crucial marginal cost. It is 
>> almost certainly more important than the marginal marketing cost, 
>> unless I misunderstand the term "marketing" as used in economics. 
>> Mitigating against this is the fact that "radical MNT" may drive the 
>> marginal cost of energy toward zero.  ...
>
> If you think the (marginal) cost of energy might go to zero, then 
> unless you have a story about how the (marginal) cost of marketing 
> goes to zero, I don't see how you can be confident that the cost of 
> energy is the larger cost. 

That was my point. I'm sorry that I was not clear. You have not 
mentioned energy at all. If you don't mention it earlier,  (going to 
zero) then I fell that you should memtion it here.

>> It is very difficult ot construct a "radical MNT" scenario that does 
>> not result in self-reproduction of local manufacturing. Therefore, it 
>> is not clear that this is a primary assumption. I take this as a 
>> consequence of assumptions 1 and 2.
>
>
> Even if it does eventually, there may be an important time duration 
> before then.  The design problem may be very hard, after all.
>
I don't understand. If we can build an MNT-based fabricator, then we 
already have the design for the fabricator, and we also have the design 
for the "plant" (or techniques plus tooling) that can build the 
fabricator. Non-self-replication requires that some portion of that 
plant is cannot be constructed by the fabricator. I think that this is 
highly unlikely. Note that there in no requirement that the fabricator 
replicate itself without assistence. The effect is the same if the 
fabricator can produce subassemblies of itself and the tools needed to 
assemble them into another fabricator.

I suppose we could postulate a "secret ingredient." either the 
fabricator or a subassembly of the fabricator might  have a design that 
is secret and that cannot be reverse-engineered. I feel that this is 
would not last very long. Likewise, any attempt at regulation will fail, 
because the incentives are far too high for an individual or a country 
to ignore the regulation.