NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure most of NSG has at least some idea of the implications of nanomachines. Not the grey goo, take over the world sort, but rather, the molecular assembly types used in factory settings.

Relatively small modules that could probably fit in a garage which can take raw materials, and through molecular reassembly, create a finished good, with relatively low energy input and nearly no waste output that normal production methods produce.

External costs like licenses, patents and such alike, the cost of production would plummet to little more than the raw materials, electricity and blueprints for whatever it is that is being produced. At least that's how the science fiction goes.

The question though, is what would this sort of thing do to the world economy? Once nanoformer technology became public knowledge that is. Would it upset current economic giants because the technology became widespread and nobody needed large producers anymore? Would there be a collapse in the global economy as businesses went out of business?

Or would the first developers closely safeguard the secret, collapse every other competing business by creating impossibly cheap products and create a world monopoly unlike ever seen before?

What does NSG think?

Nanotechnology is advancing on such a bizarrely broad front, that it would be virtually impossible for anyone to get a corner on the market in any field. My girlfriend, for instance, has been working on nanotubes for medical purposes, and isolated nanodetectors in the individuals nanotubes for various forms of medical testing, with minimal amounts of drawn blood. And she's just an undergrad.

People working on various sorts of nanotechnology are going to find it to be difficult to achieve such an outcome, because they'll have interacted at every step on the way with other people seeking similar goals.

Nanotechnology is advancing on such a bizarrely broad front, that it would be virtually impossible for anyone to get a corner on the market in any field. My girlfriend, for instance, has been working on nanotubes for medical purposes, and isolated nanodetectors in the individuals nanotubes for various forms of medical testing, with minimal amounts of drawn blood. And she's just an undergrad.

Is she doing the nano project for FEH?

Is she doing the nano project for FEH?

She's working with Dave Tomasko, in his research group, she did the robot project when she was in FEH.

Nanotechnology is advancing on such a bizarrely broad front, that it would be virtually impossible for anyone to get a corner on the market in any field. My girlfriend, for instance, has been working on nanotubes for medical purposes, and isolated nanodetectors in the individuals nanotubes for various forms of medical testing, with minimal amounts of drawn blood. And she's just an undergrad.

People working on various sorts of nanotechnology are going to find it to be difficult to achieve such an outcome, because they'll have interacted at every step on the way with other people seeking similar goals.

But this isn't generic nanotechnology. This is molecular engineering via mechanical means rather than chemical. Essentially nano sized robots capable of rearranging things on the molecular scale. It's a very specific branch.

She's working with Dave Tomasko, in his research group, she did the robot project when she was in FEH.

Yeah, my friend's a chemie and he's doing nano this quarter. They're doing all kinds of stuff with lab-on-a-chip. Me? I'm just doing AMIS 521.

Yeah, my friend's a chemie and he's doing nano this quarter. They're doing all kinds of stuff with lab-on-a-chip. Me? I'm just doing AMIS 521.

I do not envy you on that, seeing as I graduated early, and am working with some off-campus research stuff until grad school starts. I've been accepted into the MPA program next year, and I think I've got a top-flight internship once that starts.

Although, I envy any chemie's even less.

I'm sure most of NSG has at least some idea of the implications of nanomachines. Not the grey goo, take over the world sort, but rather, the molecular assembly types used in factory settings.

Relatively small modules that could probably fit in a garage which can take raw materials, and through molecular reassembly, create a finished good, with relatively low energy input and nearly no waste output that normal production methods produce.

External costs like licenses, patents and such alike, the cost of production would plummet to little more than the raw materials, electricity and blueprints for whatever it is that is being produced. At least that's how the science fiction goes.

The question though, is what would this sort of thing do to the world economy? Once nanoformer technology became public knowledge that is. Would it upset current economic giants because the technology became widespread and nobody needed large producers anymore? Would there be a collapse in the global economy as businesses went out of business?

Or would the first developers closely safeguard the secret, collapse every other competing business by creating impossibly cheap products and create a world monopoly unlike ever seen before?

What does NSG think?
Well, you could charge customers to use a one time or limited run blueprint to make copies of the item, for example.

You'd still need people doing R&D, and the average joe is not about to figure out how to make a TV, then figure out how to program the machine to deliver the goods, I think.

Well, you could charge customers to use a one time or limited run blueprint to make copies of the item, for example.

You'd still need people doing R&D, and the average joe is not about to figure out how to make a TV, then figure out how to program the machine to deliver the goods, I think.

But you see, that's the thing. This sort of technology could be considered a living nightmare to patents and big businesses that invest heavily in the manufacturing.

In one fell swoop, you'd obsolete everything between the raw materials procurement and the front end store. You could do away with smelting plants, refineries, the whole kaboodle, and replace them with a one step nanoformer factory which will take care of the whole thing.

And nanoformers would be dirt cheap compared to the whole thing. I mean, you could always have a nanoformer factory make another one of itself. And then where would it end? Every Joe Schmoe with the equivalent of an industrial metropolis in their garage, and the blueprints for whatever downloaded off the net?

And nanoformers would be dirt cheap compared to the whole thing. I mean, you could always have a nanoformer factory make another one of itself. And then where would it end? Every Joe Schmoe with the equivalent of an industrial metropolis in their garage, and the blueprints for whatever downloaded off the net?

Today's commercial 3D printers won't let you copy parts of the printer. Why would it be different in the future? Expect extreme amounts of DRM, expect any interesting use of this technology to be illegal, and expect the punishment for product piracy to be far worse than music piracy is today.

Almost no one in the general population will be in full support of these laws, just as they aren't of our current IP laws and their consequences, but yet they won't do anything to change the situation, just as they aren't today.

Yes, I'm pessimistic, but how can you not be when the trend is more legislation and more restrictions? It doesn't ever seem to go the other way, towards more freedom.

Today's commercial 3D printers won't let you copy parts of the printer.

Embedded proprietary protection chips in most cases. I'm willing to bet that in some cases, they have been circumvented. And unlike a 3d printer which only gives you a facsimile of the real thing, a nanoformer factory could literally build a working copy of itself. Likewise, by its nature, it would be able to analyze any product and make a fresh blueprint of it.

I could see practically every black and white hat of the internet banding together to break the protection systems of a nanoformer. And they will break it once they get their hands on one.


Why would it be different in the future? Expect extreme amounts of DRM, expect any interesting use of this technology to be illegal, and expect the punishment for product piracy to be far worse than music piracy is today.


DRM can be broken, has been broken. I don't see that not happening here.


Yes, I'm pessimistic, but how can you not be when the trend is more legislation and more restrictions? It doesn't ever seem to go the other way, towards more freedom.

Of course not. But everything that has come out to date is not anything as pivotal as a nanoformer factory when it comes to making means. Certainly, you can't magic gold out of thin air, but when you can churn out say, a computer by feeding it raw copper, silicon and other materials, the world economies would be in quite a bit of turmoil.

DRM can be broken, has been broken. I don't see that not happening here.

Getting a bit off topic here, but I think it's a huge problem that so many just sort of expect people to always be out there, working outside the law to provide things for us. DRM is getting better and better (still far from unbreakable of course, but the average time that DRM lasts without being broken is only going up) and the punishments more and more severe.

But it's somehow not a problem whatever next the politicians dream up for combating piracy, because somebody else will always do it. *sigh*

I don't have any experience with breaking DRM, or any friends that does it, but I used to be involved in ripping TV, and everyone says the same thing about that. They don't know and they don't care how it happens, but they're sure it always will, and they're sure to enjoy the finished product. And me, I sat through Buccaneer and Fastlink (though I had mostly quit by the time Fastlink occurred), watching on IRC how site after site is taken offline by their admins, listening the talk about who is busted, and worrying about the FBI finding my IP on a site they took.

Fear of the FBI wasn't why I quit, but for several I know that was the reason. The risk just wasn't worth it to them. Pirates and crackers are driven more underground, fewer and fewer people are involved in things that are high-risk and high-skill. Even if things do seem to get broken reliably still, this is a problem I think have to be solved politically, or else I see a very dark future ahead of us.

But yeah, I'm a pessimist. :)

Getting a bit off topic here, but I think it's a huge problem that so many just sort of expect people to always be out there, working outside the law to provide things for us. DRM is getting better and better (still far from unbreakable of course, but the average time that DRM lasts without being broken is only going up) and the punishments more and more severe.

But it's somehow not a problem whatever next the politicians dream up for combating piracy, because somebody else will always do it. *sigh*

I don't have any experience with breaking DRM, or any friends that does it, but I used to be involved in ripping TV, and everyone says the same thing about that. They don't know and they don't care how it happens, but they're sure it always will, and they're sure to enjoy the finished product. And me, I sat through Buccaneer and Fastlink (though I had mostly quit by the time Fastlink occurred), watching on IRC how site after site is taken offline by their admins, listening the talk about who is busted, and worrying about the FBI finding my IP on a site they took.

Fear of the FBI wasn't why I quit, but for several I know that was the reason. The risk just wasn't worth it to them. Pirates and crackers are driven more underground, fewer and fewer people are involved in things that are high-risk and high-skill. Even if things do seem to get broken reliably still, this is a problem I think have to be solved politically, or else I see a very dark future ahead of us.

But yeah, I'm a pessimist. :)

It won't be just pirates and crackers working on this Cola Drinkers. It'd be entire continents. Think about it. Let's say one nation comes up with working nanoformer technology. In the space of one month, thanks to the extremely reduced prototyping time it takes once a nanoformer is working, they've managed to make an efficient, compact nanoformer module you could fit in the back of a car.

This isn't some useful piece of software, or some popular piece of music from an artist. This is literally the holy grail of manufacturing.

Once knowledge of such a thing becomes available, every damned nation on the planet is going to want to access the secrets. Not just for economic reasons, but military as well. Infrastructure poor but resource rich countries could buy one state of the art aircraft and suddenly field thousands of them literally overnight, without even building the factories or training the construction workers for them.

You can bet every intelligence agency on earth is going to want to get their hands on it, not to private businesses, organized criminal groups, heck, even anarchists who would see this as a way to finally overthrow the existing social order.

No protective measure, no matter how secure, will last long enough to confer an advantage the moment the technology falls into the public sphere.

It won't be just pirates and crackers working on this Cola Drinkers. It'd be entire continents. Think about it. Let's say one nation comes up with working nanoformer technology. In the space of one month, thanks to the extremely reduced prototyping time it takes once a nanoformer is working, they've managed to make an efficient, compact nanoformer module you could fit in the back of a car.

This isn't some useful piece of software, or some popular piece of music from an artist. This is literally the holy grail of manufacturing.

Once knowledge of such a thing becomes available, every damned nation on the planet is going to want to access the secrets. Not just for economic reasons, but military as well. Infrastructure poor but resource rich countries could buy one state of the art aircraft and suddenly field thousands of them literally overnight, without even building the factories or training the construction workers for them.

You can bet every intelligence agency on earth is going to want to get their hands on it, not to private businesses, organized criminal groups, heck, even anarchists who would see this as a way to finally overthrow the existing social order.

No protective measure, no matter how secure, will last long enough to confer an advantage the moment the technology falls into the public sphere.

You make some good points, but I fear governments will try to restrict the use of this technology even if they temselves will use it to clone and pirate things on a massive scale. As you say, it would lead to drastic changes in the economy.

Regular people today have very little support for our various "Intellectual Property" laws, and piracy is mainstream, but that hasn't been enough for any government in the world to stop fighting it. In fact, they're only ever increasing their efforts to stamp it out. I hope you're right that this is big and important enough for this to change.

But damn, I don't want to wait until this technology is ready before people will revolt against the ownership of ideas. I have a feeling it's going to take a while before I can build or clone whatever I want in my own basement.

You make some good points, but I fear governments will try to restrict the use of this technology even if they temselves will use it to clone and pirate things on a massive scale. As you say, it would lead to drastic changes in the economy.

Very drastic. With just about every step between raw material and finished good being cut out, except for R&D, we could be looking at global recession unlike any ever witnessed before easily. Massive unemployment could result. But if the technology were widely disseminated, would people even need jobs anymore? A nanoformer factory sitting in a city dump, provided with sufficient energy, could recycle organic and inorganic materials into new components and even foodstuff.

Even Greenpeace would love it.


Regular people today have very little support for our various "Intellectual Property" laws, and piracy is mainstream, but that hasn't been enough for any government in the world to stop fighting it. In fact, they're only ever increasing their efforts to stamp it out. I hope you're right that this is big and important enough for this to change.

Oh, trust me on this. The originator government will do their damndest to keep the technology secret. But like nuclear fission, once the cat is out of the bag, that's it. People are going to find out.

And yes, it's big. Huge even. With this technology, one has the possibility of becoming a world crushing monopoly the likes even Bill Gates never dreamed of, or usher in an age of plenty. It's a double edged sword.

Every day we're closer and closer to our own Gray Death.

Every day we're closer and closer to our own Gray Death.

No my dear Gauthier, we aren't. Nanoformer modules are worlds apart from the gray goo theory. Nanoformer technology being currently researched is into assemblers which would require secure containment units which provide not only the control systems, but an environment which the assemblers should be able to function. Nanites capable of operation in an external environment would have to face a whole host of factors including UV radiation, radio waves and all other manner of possibly destructive environmental situations which they will simply not survive, not to mention being able to individually carry blueprints as opposed to a primary controller in the module.

It's a completely different technology.

No my dear Gauthier, we aren't. Nanoformer modules are worlds apart from the gray goo theory. Nanoformer technology being currently researched is into assemblers which would require secure containment units which provide not only the control systems, but an environment which the assemblers should be able to function. Nanites capable of operation in an external environment would have to face a whole host of factors including UV radiation, radio waves and all other manner of possibly destructive environmental situations which they will simply not survive, not to mention being able to individually carry blueprints as opposed to a primary controller in the module.

It's a completely different technology.

I wasn't commenting on a hypothetical nanoswarm so much as the fun moral dilemmas we'll face with the possibility of an actual Universal Constructor getting closer and closer.

The share of raw material and manufacture costs in the price of the product are shrinking since the beginning of industral revolution, we are looking at a final stage of this process. I think some of the existing businesses will collapse, especially those which have a lot money invested into the infrastructure. Others will adapt, charging for the rights to manufacture their products and the governments will adapt by taxing the hell out of the nanoformers.
The free blueprints downloaded off the net will be a challenge that will be met by the use of force of the law. The manufaturers of the nanoformers will enter into an agreement that will prohibite the use of the free blueprints. Of course the built in protection will be circumvented. In the end, there is no way to keep a lid on the information.
The transition from the current economic model to the new one will be smoothened by this protracted struggle.

The share of raw material and manufacture costs in the price of the product are shrinking since the beginning of industral revolution, we are looking at a final stage of this process.

I don't think that is entirely so. Certainly, streamlined manufacturing processes can reduce the overall production costs of things like advanced alloys and chemicals, but a nanoform module would bypass the need for the production facilities for them altogether, serving, as Gauthier said, a universal assembler.


I think some of the existing businesses will collapse, especially those which have a lot money invested into the infrastructure.


Practically every single one involved in heavy manufacture I would imagine. They would be obsoleted.


Others will adapt, charging for the rights to manufacture their products and the governments will adapt by taxing the hell out of the nanoformers.

Which would give rise to bootleg and black market nanoformers no doubt. Which in that case, how would you stop the black market from crushing legit nanoformers through sheer lack of taxes? The price difference would be staggering.


The free blueprints downloaded off the net will be a challenge that will be met by the use of force of the law.


I don't think that would quite work very well. Information suppression of this sort almost always meets with circumvention.


The manufaturers of the nanoformers will enter into an agreement that will prohibite the use of the free blueprints. Of course the built in protection will be circumvented. In the end, there is no way to keep a lid on the information.
The transition from the current economic model to the new one will be smoothened by this protracted struggle.

It depends on how it goes. If it's clamped down too tightly, it would mean third world countries would have an even more desperate situation as cheaply manufactured necessities become prohibitively expensive, which would result in at least more than a few attempts to steal and freely distribute it.

When that happens, host governments are likely to suppress it, possibly by violent means, in which case, given the capabilities of a nanoformer module and how easily it can produce weapons as it can cars, I'd say we're looking at a possible escalation of conflict.

What factories can you bomb when advanced weapons can be produced in great quantity out of a box that can fit in a car?

I have no doubt that there will be attempts to restrict or prevent this kind of technology. I also have no doubt that any such restriction can do nothing but fail.

In the US this is especially true, as the restriction of this technology would trample on the veritable Holy Grail of Supreme Court decisions - Restraint of Trade. But even were that not the case, we are talking a briefcase-level technology - and anything that fts in a briefcase is too small to be restricted. Particularly as this is exactly the kind of tech that will make colonization of other planets an attractive proposition, instead of a monetary boondoggle.

a nanoform module would bypass the need for the production facilities for them altogether, serving, as Gauthier said, a universal assembler.
I think that the first nanoformers will not be universal and will lack the analysing option. Even if the technology is there, it will be artificially suppressed.
Which would give rise to bootleg and black market nanoformers no doubt. Which in that case, how would you stop the black market from crushing legit nanoformers through sheer lack of taxes? The price difference would be staggering.
Every single nanoformer will imprint its serial number into the final product (subtly shifting the molecular structure in some noncritical place for example). The product lacking this information will be deemed illegal and every product bearing the number will be tracked down to its source, which will make the use of the illegal blueprints more difficult. The black market will be no doubt huge, but I don't think it will collapse the economy. People will be brainw... I mean responsible citizens will still choose legal products. For some time.
It depends on how it goes. If it's clamped down too tightly, it would mean third world countries would have an even more desperate situation as cheaply manufactured necessities become prohibitively expensive, which would result in at least more than a few attempts to steal and freely distribute it.
Third world countries will become a paradise of illegal manufacture. They will be embargoed, cut off from the world market to save the global economy and thusly will become self sufficient. The chasm will dissappear when West finally gives up the notion of controlling the flow of information and the following:
When that happens, host governments are likely to suppress it, possibly by violent means, in which case, given the capabilities of a nanoformer module and how easily it can produce weapons as it can cars, I'd say we're looking at a possible escalation of conflict.
will not happen. :D

I think that the first nanoformers will not be universal and will lack the analysing option. Even if the technology is there, it will be artificially suppressed.

The first ones? No. But remember, the first nanoformers would be capable of production of construction nanites, which means a rapid prototyping and development of more and more complex nanites. Think of it as the electronics industry, from ENIAC to now, but compressed into weeks and months.

As for analyzing, it's practically a given. If it can construct something through direct molecular engineering from blueprints and raw materials alone, it can likewise reverse engineer just about anything and make blueprints from it.


Every single nanoformer will imprint its serial number into the final product (subtly shifting the molecular structure in some noncritical place for example). The product lacking this information will be deemed illegal and every product bearing the number will be tracked down to its source, which will make the use of the illegal blueprints more difficult.


But unless you analyze each and every product, a daunting proposition since you'd have to have anti-piracy agents everywhere looking for evidence, you're not going to catch anyone. It's like the RIAA trying to catch music pirates.


The black market will be no doubt huge, but I don't think it will collapse the economy. People will be brainw... I mean responsible citizens will still choose legal products. For some time.

A very short time I think. Restrictions usually mean tariffs, taxes and all sorts of price hikes. Black market differences today usually have them at higher than legal price to make up for lack of supply. With nanoforming technology? It'd be the exact opposite. If the choice was between shelling out $20,000 for a car or $2,000 for the exact same thing, most people would pick the cheaper.


Third world countries will become a paradise of illegal manufacture. They will be embargoed, cut off from the world market to save the global economy and thusly will become self sufficient.


Given how few first world countries there are, and how third world countries tend to be the ones where most natural resources are concentrated, not to mention unrestricted production, it seems to me that likely first world country self sufficiency will be small potatoes compared to third world country super-abundance. If anything, wouldn't the third world countries rocket past first world countries still clinging to old style economic models?


The chasm will dissappear when West finally gives up the notion of controlling the flow of information and the following:

will not happen. :D

How do you know that? The West, in the tradition of most other historical countries that are seeing their grasp of power weaken, have a tendency to try a make or break attempt at conquest in order to cement their supremacy.

And being paradises of illegal manufacture, it's very likely the third world countries would surpass the first world altogether. Assuming, unlikely as it is, that sectarian strife doesn't get them first.

The first ones? No. But remember, the first nanoformers would be capable of production of construction nanites, which means a rapid prototyping and development of more and more complex nanites. Think of it as the electronics industry, from ENIAC to now, but compressed into weeks and months.
That's first thing that I seem unable to grasp – why would it be impossible to make a nanoformer that could not replicate itself? And if it is not impossible,it will be done, since that would ensure the makers the control over their creation.

If it can construct something through direct molecular engineering from blueprints and raw materials alone, it can likewise reverse engineer just about anything and make blueprints from it.
That's another. I don't understand where this implication stems from.

But unless you analyze each and every product, a daunting proposition since you'd have to have anti-piracy agents everywhere looking for evidence, you're not going to catch anyone.
It's much easier to strike at the distribution level. Many countries somehow manage to control the alcohol production.

If the choice was between shelling out $20,000 for a car or $2,000 for the exact same thing, most people would pick the cheaper.
Then why the market in stolen cars isn't so big in developed countries?

Given how few first world countries there are, and how third world countries tend to be the ones where most natural resources are concentrated, not to mention unrestricted production, it seems to me that likely first world country self sufficiency will be small potatoes compared to third world country super-abundance. If anything, wouldn't the third world countries rocket past first world countries still clinging to old style economic models?
Possibly. Ah, poetic justice. :)

How do you know that? The West, in the tradition of most other historical countries that are seeing their grasp of power weaken, have a tendency to try a make or break attempt at conquest in order to cement their supremacy.
Not in the world in which we can't account for quite a few nuclear warheads.

That's first thing that I seem unable to grasp – why would it be impossible to make a nanoformer that could not replicate itself? And if it is not impossible,it will be done, since that would ensure the makers the control over their creation.

You're thinking traditional production methods. A nanoformer module would have trillions of nanomachines inside it. These nanomachines will fail over time. That cannot be disputed, things break down. And with nanomachines, that lifetime would probably be not very long. What would make a practical nanoformer module so capable though, would be it's ability to create more nanomachines to replace losses, using feed stock hydrogen and other elements as well as recycling non-functional nanomachines.

The very thing that makes nanoformers so attractive makes it practically impossible to restrict in that fashion.


That's another. I don't understand where this implication stems from.


It's like this. Nanoformers can assemble a finished good from raw materials with a blueprint correct? That means that it can just as easily disassemble a finished good into its component elements. All someone has to do is record that disassembly process and you'd have a complete blueprint to make exact copies of the original material.


It's much easier to strike at the distribution level. Many countries somehow manage to control the alcohol production.

With briefcase sized production technology and the internet to download blueprints on? Not so easy here. Alcohol means stills, which are big, produce a lot of heat, and aren't so easy to hide. Nanoformers? Which can produce theoretically zero waste? A lot harder to track.


Then why the market in stolen cars isn't so big in developed countries?


Different kettle of fish. The cars in your example are stolen. I suppose cars aren't a good comparison here. Software is better. Or cheap knockoff t-shirts of popular brands. Nothing physical is actually stolen. It's only reproduced.


Possibly. Ah, poetic justice. :)


It might make them a little peeved. Enough to consider going to war over.


Not in the world in which we can't account for quite a few nuclear warheads.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the human race. They'll do something. You can bet on it.

what I'd like to know is theoretically could we be approaching a world where work is obsolete? should I give up on leaving the house and wait till alcohol becomes freely distributed?!

of course not and all those apprenticeships the working class have been using to justify their existence will suddenly become nothing more than novelty gimmicks that no service industry will take a kind look at

This technology will not be suppressed at all. It can't be by its very nature.

The unfortunate reality is that we are going to see an extremely radical shift in how economies work, and that for awhile at least, we will have massive unemployment and a serious potential for conflict.

Once we get past that, though, we'll find the world a much better place, I think, because of what this technology is truly capable of. It is, potentially, a way to eliminate--or at least marginalize to the point of irrelevancy--scarcity.

Do people understand what that means? We're talking about completely eliminating things like starvation and poverty, if it's properly implemented. We're talking about something that could even potentially make political systems like communism actually workable.

In other words, it would be the best thing we've ever invented.

This technology will not be suppressed at all. It can't be by its very nature.

The unfortunate reality is that we are going to see an extremely radical shift in how economies work, and that for awhile at least, we will have massive unemployment and a serious potential for conflict.

Once we get past that, though, we'll find the world a much better place, I think, because of what this technology is truly capable of. It is, potentially, a way to eliminate--or at least marginalize to the point of irrelevancy--scarcity.

Do people understand what that means? We're talking about completely eliminating things like starvation and poverty, if it's properly implemented. We're talking about something that could even potentially make political systems like communism actually workable.

In other words, it would be the best thing we've ever invented.

But also result in a huge population boom.

Then again, if its production time is so small, research on many things could speed up hugely. Space travel for instance.

what I'd like to know is theoretically could we be approaching a world where work is obsolete? should I give up on leaving the house and wait till alcohol becomes freely distributed?!

of course not and all those apprenticeships the working class have been using to justify their existence will suddenly become nothing more than novelty gimmicks that no service industry will take a kind look at

Skills based trade will survive for a while I imagine. Artists, researchers, that sort of thing. But hard manufacture, which employs millions of people, will go right out the window altogether.

This technology will not be suppressed at all. It can't be by its very nature.

The unfortunate reality is that we are going to see an extremely radical shift in how economies work, and that for awhile at least, we will have massive unemployment and a serious potential for conflict.

Once we get past that, though, we'll find the world a much better place, I think, because of what this technology is truly capable of. It is, potentially, a way to eliminate--or at least marginalize to the point of irrelevancy--scarcity.

Do people understand what that means? We're talking about completely eliminating things like starvation and poverty, if it's properly implemented. We're talking about something that could even potentially make political systems like communism actually workable.

In other words, it would be the best thing we've ever invented.

Of course, it's also a double edged sword. Nanoformers can be used to create weapons, fueling conflicts for centuries long after conventional factories are bombed out shells. And even if we don't count in conflicts, initial restrictions could result in gross unfairness. Life saving medicines costing only a few cents to make could end up on the market priced at thousands of dollars, well out of the reach of most people.

In a way, it could be used to increase scarcity. Undermine all other means of production through extremely cheap production, and when they've collapsed, raise prices.

It all depends on how much time it takes from nanoformers to go from a monopolized secret good to public sphere availability.

Of course, it's also a double edged sword. Nanoformers can be used to create weapons, fueling conflicts for centuries long after conventional factories are bombed out shells. And even if we don't count in conflicts, initial restrictions could result in gross unfairness. Life saving medicines costing only a few cents to make could end up on the market priced at thousands of dollars, well out of the reach of most people.

In a way, it could be used to increase scarcity. Undermine all other means of production through extremely cheap production, and when they've collapsed, raise prices.

It all depends on how much time it takes from nanoformers to go from a monopolized secret good to public sphere availability.

The key will be people like you and me who understand the technology's implications to work as hard as we can to keep that sort of phase to an absolute minimum and get it out there for all to have.

The key will be people like you and me who understand the technology's implications to work as hard as we can to keep that sort of phase to an absolute minimum and get it out there for all to have.

Of course, this has some very interesting implications. Nanoformer technology like this would undermine the very basis of power structures in just about every economic and political structure. The arms industry, drug barons, energy giants, and all manner of power brokers. These people thrive on controlled scarcity, and conflict, their positions and influence depends on it.

In a possible world of plenty which nanoformers promise, they'd be practically powerless with the shifting paradigms, since after all, as you admitted, it'd make systems like communism actually workable.

We can certainly count on them to hold onto their positions as tightly as they can. Through suppression, secrecy, and at early stages of nanoformer spread, possibly even war.

Of course, this has some very interesting implications. Nanoformer technology like this would undermine the very basis of power structures in just about every economic and political structure. The arms industry, drug barons, energy giants, and all manner of power brokers. These people thrive on controlled scarcity, and conflict, their positions and influence depends on it.

In a possible world of plenty which nanoformers promise, they'd be practically powerless with the shifting paradigms, since after all, as you admitted, it'd make systems like communism actually workable.

We can certainly count on them to hold onto their positions as tightly as they can. Through suppression, secrecy, and at early stages of nanoformer spread, possibly even war.

Then you can count me against them in any form of the conflict. Humanity as a whole would benefit far too much from free distribution of nanoformer technology to allow those who maintain serious control over various production methods, economies, ect to continue to hold control. They had their time in the sun, but that sun is nearly set.

Then you can count me against them in any form of the conflict. Humanity as a whole would benefit far too much from free distribution of nanoformer technology to allow those who maintain serious control over various production methods, economies, ect to continue to hold control. They had their time in the sun, but that sun is nearly set.

That may be, but even if they are removed from the picture in the end, the big question would be how a post-nanoformer world would be like. I mean, everything would be turned upside down. Means of production would be literally in the hands of the people. Would it be a anarchist type world? Or would there be some form of new government that works on a totally different basis?

That may be, but even if they are removed from the picture in the end, the big question would be how a post-nanoformer world would be like. I mean, everything would be turned upside down. Means of production would be literally in the hands of the people. Would it be a anarchist type world? Or would there be some form of new government that works on a totally different basis?

My ideal would be something a la Star Trek, with everyone seeking to better themselves.

But I honestly couldn't tell you ahead of time. I hope, though, that it's a system that's fair to everyone rather than one that creates the possibility of serious exploitation.

But who is going to want tiny little cars and television sets, so small you can barely see them?

But who is going to want tiny little cars and television sets, so small you can barely see them?

I do hope you're pulling my leg here.


My ideal would be something a la Star Trek, with everyone seeking to better themselves.

But I honestly couldn't tell you ahead of time. I hope, though, that it's a system that's fair to everyone rather than one that creates the possibility of serious exploitation.

I really don't know, but if such a system is to have a chance of rising to reality, when nanoformer technology does show up eventually, there has to be at least someone who is able to sway the masses to that ideal of a society of fairness. Someone who is capable of understanding the full implications of such a technology, and guiding the masses towards understanding it.

I do hope you're pulling my leg here.

That sort of thing was actually my first thought too, but it seemed obvious that a nanoformer's size doesn't directly correlate with what it's producing.


I really don't know, but if such a system is to have a chance of rising to reality, when nanoformer technology does show up eventually, there has to be at least someone who is able to sway the masses to that ideal of a society of fairness. Someone who is capable of understanding the full implications of such a technology, and guiding the masses towards understanding it.
In other words, we need an inspirational leader.

That sort of thing was actually my first thought too, but it seemed obvious that a nanoformer's size doesn't directly correlate with what it's producing.

Well, a simple analogy would be to think of the final product as a building, and the nanites as construction workers.


In other words, we need an inspirational leader.

More than that, you need an inspirational leader who's not only capable, but willing, to make the masses really understand. Otherwise you'd get some yahoo who will only tell them a bit of it, to push them towards their own ends, and then we'd have yet another radical inspired mess.

Well, a simple analogy would be to think of the final product as a building, and the nanites as construction workers.


Exactly my point. The nanoformer itself does not need to be the size of the object it is creating.

More than that, you need an inspirational leader who's not only capable, but willing, to make the masses really understand. Otherwise you'd get some yahoo who will only tell them a bit of it, to push them towards their own ends, and then we'd have yet another radical inspired mess.
Question is, where are we going to find such a leader? That's not exactly the sort of leader you can just pick up at your nearest convenience store.

Question is, where are we going to find such a leader? That's not exactly the sort of leader you can just pick up at your nearest convenience store.

Well, that's a bit of a tall order really. A combination of insight, energy ideals, foresight, intelligence and charisma that are above that of the average person. Sort of an ideologically adapted Castro or Martin Luther King. Very rare I would imagine, though universities may be a good place to start looking.

Well, that's a bit of a tall order really. A combination of insight, energy ideals, foresight, intelligence and charisma that are above that of the average person. Sort of an ideologically adapted Castro or Martin Luther King. Very rare I would imagine, though universities may be a good place to start looking.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, given the very nature of the situation, such a leader can't truly be found until the situation is upon us.

In other words, it's going to end up being one of those cliche "saved by the bell" type of things.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, given the very nature of the situation, such a leader can't truly be found until the situation is upon us.

In other words, it's going to end up being one of those cliche "saved by the bell" type of things.

Maybe, or maybe not. Still though, it'd be quite an interesting thing to consider. A post nanoformer world wherein just about every manufacturing job is obsolete. What would the millions of unemployed do? If nanoformer technolgy can create a society wherein the old models of economic demand are now irrelevant and the pressures for basic living is no longer there, what kind of society would it create?

A new generation of couch potatoes? Or would there be something to replace the sudden lack of demand for manual labor? Bound not by economic need, but something else?