[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Dan Clemmensen]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> On 11/16/2003, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I meant for energy to be included in "feedstocks".  I've reworded my 
> abstract to be clear on that point.
>
That make a lot of sense, and it raises another point. Energy can be 
extracted locally, given sufficient capital equipment. The same is true 
for (other) feedstocks. Most current hypothetical MNT centers on carbon, 
which can be extracted from the air. A more sophisticated MNT will use 
H, O  and N, all from the air, and Si, from the ground. Furthermore, MNT 
should permit recycling at the atomic level. Therefore, the material 
feedstocks also go to zero, at least for enough material to support an 
extravagantly luxurious lifestyle for evey human (Pre-SI.  Post-SI, we 
drift off into mega-structures, etc.)  In particular, with sufficient 
energy (and I'm guessing that local solar and geothermal will suffice) 
there is no need for new feedstock. Just recycle all this pre-MNT junk.  
MNT can produce superior materials and designs. Let's assume that the 
improvement is a cumulative factor of ten (I feel that this is extremely 
conservative.) Then, you can increase your capital goods by a factor of 
ten by recycling, without needing new feedstock. If you own land, the 
situation is more extreme: Dig a new sub-basement, and the excavated 
mass is greater than that of all your capital goods, including your 
house, by a  large factor.

Will it be economical to do local recycling and mining? I don't know. My 
guess is that a recycler is easier than a fabricator,