Journal Dirtside's Journal: The Theoretical Nanotech Revolution 4
Imagine if you had a device that contained millions of tiny robots inside. The robots are each only a few hundred atoms in size, but have the capability to manipulate almost any kind of molecule in very precise ways. For example, they can take a mound of dirt, which is comprised of mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and silicon, disassemble the molecules in the dirt, and reassemble them into something else -- say, sucrose (C12H22O11), i.e. ordinary sugar. The nitrogen and silicon are placed into storage containers, bound into some harmless form like N2 (atmospheric nitrogen) or SiO2 (silicon dioxide, aka quartz), or perhaps others.
The entire apparatus is computer-controlled, so you can specify exactly what it is you want the machine to make. The machine is instructed, for example, to create cubical sucrose crystals 1mm on a side.
If the applications of this machine are not yet obvious, then let me expound. This machine can take something relatively worthless -- say, dirt, or plant mulch, weeds, rocks, etc. -- and turn it into food, clothing, whatever. As long as the inputs have enough of each type of atom to build what you need, the machine can manufacture *any* physical object.
So you wouldn't need to buy food at the supermarket. You wouldn't need to buy clothes at the store. All you would need is a computer program to specify how to make a given item, and some energy input -- plug the machine into the wall, or maybe the device will be solar- or wind-powered. Give it some material to work with, and it will make lunch for you.
Whether such a device is practical is still unknown; this kind of atom-precise nanotech is barely into its infancy, with a long way to go, although I think that if such devices are practical, we'll begin seeing them within 20 years. That said, what would be the social effects of such a device? I saw an article a few days ago where someone was talking about this very topic, but then they began lamenting what would happen to those whose livelihoods depend on manufacturing -- farmers, steel mills, etc.
The point they completely missed was that a machine that can make anything, can even make more of itself. So once you have one of these, you give it the atoms necessary to make another one. Now you have two machines. Have each one make another one. Repeat ad infinitum. Now everyone has one. The farmer doesn't need to sell his crop for money; he can manufacture all the food, clothing, and amenities he needs. Everyone would be able to endlessly replicate any physical object.
When scarcities like that are gone, the things that will retain true value will be things that cannot be replicated, and the only truly finite resource on this planet is land. (Yes, the planet consists of a finite amount of matter, but the amount of land one person can "occupy" is much greater relative to the total amount of land, than is the amount of matter one person can use relative to the total amount of matter available.) Information can be copied at an infinitesimal cost; a nanotech replicator would allow physical objects to receive the same treatment. Other things that will retain value will be mostly artistic skills, like musical skill, acting skill, artistic skill, and so on. Understanding of particular things will retain its value, or the ability to convince people of things. Knowledge will be very important, because you will no longer be able to rely on being able to buy and sell possessions.
I don't claim it'll be a utopia; there will still be stupid, ignorant, arrogant, rude, selfish, credulous people out there. But I think that entirely removing survival pressure from the equation would be a mighty useful thing.
Neglecting Meglomanical Despots (Score:2)
Because of my profession I immediately assess: what if someone made this into a weapon. Nasty nano-viruses and nano-biotic weapons would arise. Equally nasty nano-defensive devices would also have to develop. Nanobots would become as antibodies... you'd need defensive nanobots to survive. A Warlord could destroy your nano replicators or destroy you.
If everybody had equally good Nano defenses and even a hell-bent Warlord couldn't defeat them... then what is to stop anarchy? Would anarchy be a bad thing? What would anarchy mean to a bunch of nano-robotically protected, immortal, super-humans? What would the motivations for the human race be after that? What would people do? Would they fight each other? Would they go to Mars? I don't know what that would mean and I find it hard even making up stories about such people.
It's most likely that when Nanotech arrives it will be in the hands of a few at first. The choices of that few dozen people would determine the outcome for the whole human race. The first nanotech is likely to be very limited too... so those limitations will factor heavily on how Nano-society develops. Limitations like: A nano-repicator might work but it might take months or years to make a single tomato in the Version 1 release.
Personally, I think twenty years is optimistic. I believe that as we develop Nanotechnology it will approach a simmilarity to molecular biology and materials science such as the one shared between Physical Engineering and Applied Physics before it comes into its own. I think this is a good thing since it will give us time to get a handle on the effects of the little nanorobotic buggers on each area they begin to affect.
Ofcourse I'm a pessimist when it comes to the next twenty years. Even I hope I'm wrong.
Re:Neglecting Meglomanical Despots (Score:2)
As a buffer between human and posthuman, a defensive active shield - or "artificial immune system"- would have to infest EVERYTHING to be effective. As long as the good guys bootstrap nanotech first, we'll have a smart 'anti-grey-goo' network covering everything (but you wouldn't notice it, just as most people don't know they're infested with bacteria).
--
Re:Neglecting Meglomanical Despots (Score:1)
Suppose we make these self replicating nanobots, but we mess up, even a tiny bit. The results could be devestating.
I know what you are thinking, "Just don't let damn Wesley Crusher program the things first".