[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Chris Phoenix]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:33:22 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
> On 11/11/2003, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> >I assume the word "nanotech" here means MNT.  And MNT becomes
> >interesting when it becomes capable of exponential manufacturing.
> 
> We had been explicitly distinguishing several possibilities short of
> quickly reproducing nanotech factories.

Sorry; I've gone back and read the discussion now.  

I'd like to question some of performance numbers and operating
characteristics you've chosen as reasonable.  You're talking about a
nanotech-based manufacturing system that can build large products,
right?  

I can imagine a rapid-prototyping system that uses nanotech to produce
its materials, and perhaps uses NEMS to deposit them.  I suspect that
such a thing would be more or less competitive with other non-nanotech
rapid-prototyping systems.  In short, probably not interesting for the
present discussion.

So what technology could build complete products from the atoms up?  I'm
thinking it would have to be mechanochemistry plus automated assembly.

Look at what that requires.  First, it must involve a huge number of
fabricators working in parallel.  Second, it must be completely
automated.  Third, it must be able to build a wide range of
nano-featured materials and devices.

Is there any reason such a thing would not be capable of producing a
copy of itself?  Self-replicating computer programs are trivial.  And if
you can build atomically precise mechanical systems by direct computer
control, self-replicating machinery becomes quite straightforward to
design.  

Is there any reason such a thing would be slow?  Simple scaling laws
predict that it could do between a million and a billion operations per
second.  And a few operations add one or more atoms to the product.  If
(as seems reasonable) a fabricator contains less than a billion atoms,
the thing is going to be producing its own mass in seconds to hours. 
(Some bacteria take fifteen minutes.)  I don't see any point in talking
about MNT systems duplicating themselves in a year--which is a time
scale you mentioned.

In fact, I wonder if there's any point in talking about any system
duplicating itself in a year.  Any technology that can do that will be
semi-obsolete within the year.  It's probably cheaper to just build two
of them at the start, then use them both before they depreciate.

> > > >What does it take to produce a good meta-designer? A robust morphogenetic
> > > >code, an evolutionary system, a good nanoscale simulator, and lots of
> > > >computronium to run the above. As embarrassingly parallel as they come.
> > > >And that's about the only metainvention you need to make.
> > >
> > > And how damn hard is it to have "lots" of "robust" "good" items like these?
> >
> >Are you questioning the ability to build such a system fault-tolerant?
> 
> I'm much more concerned about the robustness of the code.

Well, then "lots" is no harder than one.  And we can certainly do one.

> >...  I'd like to float a definition here.  An "unlimited-sum
> >transaction" is one in which the benefit to one (or both) of the parties
> >is much higher than the cost, and is not correlated with the cost.
> >I argue that ... commercial trading is incapable of dealing
> >adequately with unlimited-sum transactions.
> 
> The liquids I drink over the next few days are worth millions to me, as I'd
> die without them.

No, they're not worth millions.  If you didn't have those liquids, you'd
go to a vending machine and buy $5 worth of soda to keep you alive.  The
value to you of the liquids is no more than the cost of replacing them
from a different source.  

Now, if you were in a desert with one canteen and two people, that
liquid could be worth millions to you.  And how long would the spirit of
free trade last before one of you stabbed the other?

> Their cost is far lower, and uncorrelated with the value
> I place on my life.  So you say that commercial trading can't deal with
> getting me liquids?

Let's take another example.  The largest cause of infant death in
Venezuela is diarrhea.  This could generally be prevented by a few
pennies worth of salt and sugar in clean water, and very simple
instructions.  The value of this resource to the parents of those babies
would be immense.  Venezuela does not have enough of a legal system to
prevent someone from setting up a business to supply the need.

So why are the babies dying?  Can we consider that a market failure?

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org