Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [nanotech] The end of capitalism? was nanotech Re: Bill Joy (Japanese)

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Bombere
    ... Talk to Mark Prado about this^ http://www.permanent.com _______________________________________________ Why pay for something you could get for free?
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 10, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve Wish wrote:
      >
      > DonSaxman@... wrote:
      >
      > > In a message dated 00-08-10 16:14:07 EDT, you write:
      > >
      > > I can think of lots of things that nano-factories can't make. Any of
      > > them
      > > might end up being the basis for a new kind of capitalism. Examples
      > > include
      > > real estate,
      >
      > space colonization, man made islands, desert reclaimation, arcologies.


      Talk to Mark Prado about this^
      http://www.permanent.com
      _______________________________________________
      Why pay for something you could get for free?
      NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
      http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
    • DonSaxman@aol.com
      In a message dated 00-08-10 20:48:41 EDT, you write: ... space colonization, man made islands, desert reclaimation, arcologies. ... robots, virtual reality,
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 10, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 00-08-10 20:48:41 EDT, you write:

        << > In a message dated 00-08-10 16:14:07 EDT, you write:
        >
        > I can think of lots of things that nano-factories can't make. Any of
        > them
        > might end up being the basis for a new kind of capitalism. Examples
        > include
        > real estate,

        space colonization, man made islands, desert reclaimation, arcologies.

        > personal service,

        robots, virtual reality, cyber/neuron interfaces

        > art (whatever that is),

        as above, plus interactive drugs and programed realities of various
        kinds, tailored lifeforms

        > "perks" of various
        > kinds,relationships,

        cyber flunkies, robo whores, cloned lovers, augmented organs,
        interactive enviroments.

        > and even time itself.

        extended lifes, altered realities of several kinds, brain augments to
        make you experience life at cyber speeds

        > Even assuming that automation

        > takes over a lot of professional services, I don't see how it could
        > take over
        > them all. For a while at least, we'll need doctors, lawyers, and no
        > doubt
        > policemen.

        not for long, unless people do it for fun

        >
        >
        > Would people do what they want to do and let everyone else do what
        > they want
        > to do? In your dreams. There would still be religious and
        > language-based
        > wars, lots of "victimless crime" laws, and nationalistic jihads.

        all of these might as well be "video" games even if the paricipants
        want to risk thier own lives they will be no need for other people to
        allow outlaws to define the majority's reality

        >
        >
        > Plus, people don't act rationally even at the best of time. I don't
        > expect
        > rationality to increase with increased freedom. In fact, increased
        > freedom
        > probbably leads to increased recreational drug use and decreased
        > rationality.
        >
        > I don't think life will get boring for a while.
        >
        >

        bordom will be optional...... wish >>


        So it will be a race whether a nano-driven economy of abundance happens first
        ( and causes an industrial collapse) or all those wonderful non-nano
        developments you suggest happen first.
      • Steve Wish
        ... space colonization, man made islands, desert reclaimation, arcologies. ... robots, virtual reality, cyber/neuron interfaces ... as above, plus interactive
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          DonSaxman@... wrote:

          > In a message dated 00-08-10 16:14:07 EDT, you write:
          >
          > I can think of lots of things that nano-factories can't make. Any of
          > them
          > might end up being the basis for a new kind of capitalism. Examples
          > include
          > real estate,

          space colonization, man made islands, desert reclaimation, arcologies.

          > personal service,

          robots, virtual reality, cyber/neuron interfaces

          > art (whatever that is),

          as above, plus interactive drugs and programed realities of various
          kinds, tailored lifeforms

          > "perks" of various
          > kinds,relationships,

          cyber flunkies, robo whores, cloned lovers, augmented organs,
          interactive enviroments.

          > and even time itself.

          extended lifes, altered realities of several kinds, brain augments to
          make you experience life at cyber speeds

          > Even assuming that automation

          > takes over a lot of professional services, I don't see how it could
          > take over
          > them all. For a while at least, we'll need doctors, lawyers, and no
          > doubt
          > policemen.

          not for long, unless people do it for fun

          >
          >
          > Would people do what they want to do and let everyone else do what
          > they want
          > to do? In your dreams. There would still be religious and
          > language-based
          > wars, lots of "victimless crime" laws, and nationalistic jihads.

          all of these might as well be "video" games even if the paricipants
          want to risk thier own lives they will be no need for other people to
          allow outlaws to define the majority's reality

          >
          >
          > Plus, people don't act rationally even at the best of time. I don't
          > expect
          > rationality to increase with increased freedom. In fact, increased
          > freedom
          > probbably leads to increased recreational drug use and decreased
          > rationality.
          >
          > I don't think life will get boring for a while.
          >
          >

          bordom will be optional...... wish
        • Bruce Bombere
          ... Do you think that nanogenerators might replace conventional batteries? _______________________________________________ Why pay for something you could get
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            DonSaxman@... wrote:
            >
            > In a message dated 00-08-10 16:14:07 EDT, you write:
            >
            > << I suspect that in a world of plenty people would do whatever they do
            > because it simply pleased them to do so. Not just to escape boredom.
            > It is a new and radical concept to many - this doing because it is what
            > you really want to do, what sings you rather than doing to escape some
            > consequence or another or to "pass the time" or "make a living". >>
            >
            > I can think of lots of things that nano-factories can't make.

            Do you think that nanogenerators might replace conventional batteries?
            _______________________________________________
            Why pay for something you could get for free?
            NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
            http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
          • Samantha Atkins
            ... Not quite so obvious. Many traditional types of work did in fact dissappear or move elsewhere with lower human labor costs. Also, a part of the argument
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              "Christopher J. Phoenix" wrote:
              >
              > At 01:29 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Ed Minchau wrote:
              > >Its seems that the people here are convinced that nanotech means the end of
              > the traditional economy, and that nobody will have to work. This is a
              > repetition of the same prediction that has been given by every futurist of
              > the 20th century. In the 50's and 60's there were predictions that
              > computers and automation would eliminate work for most people, with 10 hour
              > weeks for the rest of us. In fact the reverse has happened. As technology
              > improves, instead of eliminating jobs, it opens up whole new areas and ADDS
              > to the economy.
              >
              > Hm... In the 50s and 60s people greatly underestimated the amount of
              > computer power required to interact with the real world. They thought they
              > could do useful AI-stuff with computers that had less processing power than
              > a housefly. Obviously they were wrong.

              Not quite so obvious. Many traditional types of work did in fact
              dissappear or move elsewhere with lower human labor costs. Also, a part
              of the argument is that with increased automation all the real needs and
              most of the real material wants of people can be taken care of without
              the need to employ all able-bodied/minded people fulltime to do it.
              That is a quite valid argument imho. It certainly looks to me as if a
              lot of our economy is over-heated to keep more people working and
              producing/consuming increasingly empty and meaningless goods just
              because we can't figure out how to free people to find something
              meaningful to do outside of a regular fulltime paying job and insure
              they have a decent standard of living including self-esteem and
              respect.

              I don't believe that turning more and more of the world (and later the
              local solar system) into consumer junk just for the sake of more
              consumption is healthy.

              - samantha
            • Samantha Atkins
              ... First, some of us still do a lot of those traditional women s tasks in addition to holding down a fulltime job. Second, in terms of buying power it is
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                DonSaxman@... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 00-08-11 16:53:35 EDT, you write:
                >
                > << Face it, North Americans are working longer and longer hours, and in most
                > households both parents have to work full-time. This is with our vast
                > improvements in automation and computing power over the last 40 years.
                > Contrast this with the situation in the 50's, when we didn't have our
                > labor-saving devices. Most households were able to get by on only one
                > income. >>
                >
                > I always thought that housewifes were the first large segment of workers to
                > get automated out of a job. They used to have slave ten hours a day to keep
                > the house clean, prepare the meals, and often make clothes, etc. And not so
                > long ago, either. All of these have largely been automated away. This has
                > freed up women (and also some individuals who used to work as supllemental
                > domestic help) to decide to enter outside-the-home careers and supplement
                > their income. The two household incomes allow a much higher standard of
                > living and a greater expectation concerning what is a "reasonable" standard
                > of living.
                >

                First, some of us still do a lot of those "traditional women's tasks" in
                addition to holding down a fulltime job. Second, in terms of buying
                power it is quite questional whether the middle-class has a higher
                standard of living now. In most parts of the country it takes more in
                terms of yearly income (both incomes) now to say, buy a house, than it
                took in the time of our parents and grandparents. This, in my opinion,
                is a symptom of sick economic policies and of the federales eating up
                the real standard-of-living benefits of better technology and then
                some. We have much better knowledge tools but not much higher (or even
                as high in many segments of the population) buying power.

                - samantha
              • DonSaxman@aol.com
                In a message dated 00-08-11 16:48:31 EDT, you write: I m glad you asked that.
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 00-08-11 16:48:31 EDT, you write:

                  << Do you think that nanogenerators might replace conventional batteries? >>

                  I'm glad you asked that.

                  Well, by definition, nanogenerators could perform most of the functions of
                  both portable and stationary batteries, and could replace them on those
                  grounds alone.

                  Nanotech should have an even bigger impact on portable power storage though.
                  In many cases, a nanotechnological agent will eliminate the need for a
                  bettery in the first place. For instance, a good chemoluminescent material
                  could replace a flashlight and flashlight battery too. Most portable
                  nano-devices I've heard of will be powered by something much more like an
                  integral fuel cell than an electrical storage battery. Remember -- even
                  today's commercial fuel cells are powered by all kinds of unlikely things,
                  including methanol, gasoline, hydrogen, and even metallic aluminum ingots.
                  Electrical-enabled nanites could be powered by just about any material that
                  can form a couple. And with non-electrical nanites, the sky's the limit.

                  Anyway, this is all long term. In the short term, nano-scale engineering is
                  already forming the basis for an electrical power storage revolution that
                  could be more significant than the switch to lithium-based electrodes. So
                  far, attention has centered on fullerenes and aerogels.

                  BTW, I''m about 75% through writing a book on "Exotic Energy Storage," and
                  any leads or suggestions will be appreciated. The publisher will be BCC,
                  Inc. and I expect it to be available (priced for sale mainly to businesses
                  and governments, alas) by the end of the year. It mainly centers on the ten
                  year market potential stuff like flywheels, themal energy storage,
                  supercapacitors, and the like, but nanogenerators will be mentioned as an
                  "exploratory" technology.
                • Steve Wish
                  ... either/or dualities might give a false prediction... there is always a vast amount of blurring. a lot of lag from the richest to the poorest, but one can
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    DonSaxman@... wrote:

                    > So it will be a race whether a nano-driven economy of abundance
                    > happens first
                    > ( and causes an industrial collapse) or all those wonderful non-nano
                    > developments you suggest happen first.
                    >

                    either/or dualities might give a false prediction... there is always a
                    vast amount of blurring. a lot of lag from the richest to the poorest,
                    but one can never tell who's world view will allow them to accept change
                    the fastest.... the rich have more opportunities, but the poor have more
                    incentive to change..... i think that everything will continue to
                    happen at once, as usual... wish
                  • Christopher J. Phoenix
                    ... I don t see a direct connection between the statement and the question, so I ll just answer the question out of context. Yes, nanogenerators will
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 11, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 01:15 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Bruce Bombere wrote:
                      >DonSaxman@... wrote:
                      >> I can think of lots of things that nano-factories can't make.
                      >
                      > Do you think that nanogenerators might replace conventional batteries?

                      I don't see a direct connection between the statement and the question, so
                      I'll just answer the question out of context.

                      Yes, nanogenerators will definitely be better than conventional batteries.
                      No, they won't replace them--because other technologies will get there
                      first. Yes, nanogenerators will be better than the "other technologies."

                      I think I know what I'm talking about in the following mini-lecture, but
                      feel free to point out if I make too sweeping a statement or say something
                      wrong.

                      A battery turns chemical energy into electrical energy by letting charged
                      atoms (ions) or molecules move from one place to another place they'd rather
                      be. This builds up a charge difference which can then cause a current flow.
                      The voltage of a battery is related to how much the charged bits "want" to
                      move.

                      There are many different battery technologies, with different strengths and
                      weaknesses--some are lighter, some more compact, some are rechargeable, some
                      have lower internal resistance (can deliver power faster). But they all
                      depend on materials that like to ionize, and they all (except zinc-air?)
                      need to store all the reactants and all the reaction products, so they all
                      have low power density compared to, say, the same volume or weight of diesel
                      fuel.

                      Today we have only a couple of other technologies that can produce
                      electricity on demand in a small package. None of them will show up in your
                      flashlight next year.

                      Capacitors store electric charge directly. Electrons are strongly repelled
                      by other electrons. But if you put a lot of electrons next to a lot of
                      "holes" (deficit of electrons) they're a little happier about it. Put two
                      metal plates very close together, or better yet coat a metal plate with thin
                      oxide and put a conducting liquid on it (electrolytic capacitor), and you
                      can pack in a fair amount of charge. But even the best of today's
                      capacitors can store only a few watt-seconds per ounce. By comparison, a AA
                      battery may store more like watt-hours. Note that capacitors do not use
                      chemical energy like batteries do--they store energy by packing electrons
                      where they don't really want to be. Also, some capacitors tend to leak away
                      their charge fairly quickly, and the voltage drops rapidly as you use the
                      charge.

                      Fuel cells ionize some fuel, such as hydrogen gas or methanol, and make it
                      combine with oxygen; the protons really want to get next to the oxygen, so
                      you can extract a lot of energy as they move across a membrane. Fuel cells
                      have some advantages over batteries, such as not storing the oxidizer or
                      waste product (usually water, sometimes CO2). But hydrogen doesn't ionize
                      as easily as the metals used in most batteries, so fuel cells usually run at
                      high temperature and are bulky. Small cool fuel cells are on the
                      horizon--they may be used to run cell phones, for example. But at first
                      they'll be quite expensive!

                      Several years ago a microtech gas turbine was being designed. This would be
                      a complete gas turbine, compressor, and generator, the size of a large
                      button, with 20 watts output. Impressive! And has the advantage of using
                      high-energy-density fuel. But it doesn't exist yet, and it's probably not
                      suitable for low-power applications (e.g. smoke detectors) unless it's
                      combined with a capacitor or rechargeable battery and only run part-time.

                      With nanotech, we can play a whole new kind of game. We can grab the fuel
                      in one binding site, the oxidizer in another, and bring them together very
                      slowly. If we do it right, we can extract the mechanical energy from the
                      chemicals pulling together--for example, imagine two conveyor belts moving
                      in the same direction that slant toward each other. The oxidation reaction
                      would pull them along. Since the reaction would be extremely slow, all of
                      the energy would go into mechanical force rather than heat. (Biological
                      systems already do this.) This should allow over 99% efficiency--much
                      higher than heat-cycle engines. Once we have mechanical energy, we can
                      convert it to electrical energy by running a tiny electrostatic motor
                      backwards. (A. D. Moore has designed and built some tabletop "Dirod"
                      electrostatic generators that are similar in principle.) Again, this should
                      be over 99% efficient.

                      Note that we can actually play two different games. We can either extract
                      energy from chemical fuel, or we can store mechanical energy in flywheels
                      and extract that. A flywheel with electrostatic motor/generator could
                      replace a capacitor. Note that an atomically precise flywheel can be spun
                      up until the bonds at the rim are almost about to break, so it can
                      effectively store almost as much energy as chemical systems.

                      With nanoscale components, you could easily build a fuel tank, oxygen
                      intake, chemical processor, and generator into a cubic micron. So there's
                      no problem designing any kind of battery you want--a drop-in replacement for
                      wristwatch cells, or for 12V truck batteries. In addition to the higher
                      energy density (especially if you can use atmospheric oxygen and vent your
                      waste products) and better efficiency, the battery can deliver a _lot_ more
                      power. The power density of Drexler's motor/generator is 10^15 watts per
                      cubit meter! For comparison, a car cranking at 80 amps is drawing less than
                      10^3 watts.

                      So yes, nanotech will allow us to store chemical (or other) energy and
                      produce electricity in small packages, with designs better in every way than
                      today's batteries. (To simulate rechargeable batteries, just run the
                      conveyor in reverse, and the chemical reaction will go the other way. It
                      would take a little extra design, such as pulling water and CO2 out of the
                      air to make the fuel, but should be easily doable.)

                      Chris
                      --
                      Chris Phoenix cphoenix@... http://www.best.com/~cphoenix
                      Work (Reading Research Council): http://www.dyslexia.com
                      Is your paradigm shift automatic or stick?
                    • DonSaxman@aol.com
                      In a message dated 08/11/2000 9:46:45 PM Central Daylight Time, ... That was a pretty good summary of the energy storage state of the art. My only addition is
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 12, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 08/11/2000 9:46:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
                        cphoenix@... writes:

                        > Small cool fuel cells are on the
                        > horizon--they may be used to run cell phones, for example. But at first
                        > they'll be quite expensive!

                        That was a pretty good summary of the energy storage state of the art. My
                        only addition is that cell phone sized fuel cells should be available
                        commercially next year. They will be powered by some kind of proprietary
                        alcohol-based fuel, and are supposedly going to be "competitively priced"
                        with lithium-polymer cell phone batteries (which currently cosy about $100 -
                        $200 a pop).

                        Also, a few fuel cell designs run at a high temperature (some require molten
                        electrodes), but many do not.

                        Finally, zinc-air cells (and similar lithium-air cells) are really just
                        tradional electrochemical couples. One of the electrodes just happens to be
                        the oxygen in air. They ought to be called zinc-oxygen batteries. Some even
                        incorporate perselective gas separation membranes to enrich the amount of
                        oxygen supplied to the couple.
                      • DonSaxman@aol.com
                        In a message dated 00-08-12 16:24:30 EDT, you write:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 12, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 00-08-12 16:24:30 EDT, you write:

                          << In most parts of the country it takes more in
                          terms of yearly income (both incomes) now to say, buy a house, than it
                          took in the time of our parents and grandparents. This, in my opinion,
                          is a symptom of sick economic policies and of the federales eating up
                          the real standard-of-living benefits of better technology and then
                          some. We have much better knowledge tools but not much higher (or even
                          as high in many segments of the population) buying power. >>


                          I don't think that is true if you compare apples to apples. Home buyer's
                          expectations have increased greatly since our parents' and grandparents'
                          days. There are a lot of standard features now that you couldn't even buy
                          back then. The houses back then were pretty basic. While I'm sure there are
                          a lot of ad hoc exceptions (like buying a $500,000 fixer-upper bungalow in
                          San Francisco), you'd have to prove to me that comparable housing in
                          comparable locations costs more now.

                          For instance, in my grandfather's day, Sears used to sell mail-order plywood
                          houses. They were essentually pretty tar paper shacks. And they sold a
                          *lot* of them to people who considered them a move up in the world. Even one
                          of today's entry-level double-wide trailers blows away one of those.
                        • Steve Wish
                          DonSaxman@aol.com wrote:I don t think that is true if you compare apples to apples. Home buyer s ... it s true... i live in a 1920 cottage hous in the mid
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 13, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            DonSaxman@... wrote:I don't think that is true if you compare apples
                            to apples. Home buyer's

                            > expectations have increased greatly since our parents' and
                            > grandparents'
                            > days. There are a lot of standard features now that you couldn't even
                            > buy
                            > back then. The houses back then were pretty basic. W
                            >
                            > For instance, in my grandfather's day, Sears used to sell mail-order
                            > plywood
                            > houses. They were essentually pretty tar paper shacks. And they sold
                            > a
                            > *lot* of them to people who considered them a move up in the world.
                            > Even one
                            > of today's entry-level double-wide trailers blows away one of those.
                            >

                            it's true... i live in a 1920 cottage hous in the mid sout, and it cost
                            me a year and a half's pay... about the same as a double wide... but the
                            double wide will have air conditioning, modern wiring, double glazing
                            and insulation, as well as sythetic floors and siding and modern
                            plumbing fixtures and outlets.... it would cost me about half the value
                            of my house to upgrade to modern standards.... it's like the difference
                            between a $1,600 1964 Ford Mustang and a $16,000 2000 Mustang.... no
                            amout of money in 1964 would have bought you CD players, antilock
                            brakes, computer fuel injection, standard factory air, catalitic
                            converters, and so on....only hot race cars back then had all aluminum,
                            double overhead cam turbo motors, disc brakes and so on.... i spent my
                            high school days working on a freinds Austin Healy 3000, and it was a
                            lump compared to most of the compacts on the road today.... a beautiful
                            lump, but still a lump.... wish
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.