User talk:Martin Coppa
From Wise Nano
Where Nanotechnology is headed by 147.144.7.104 14:39, 15 Nov 2004 (CST)
I find it very interesting that such a young person like Mr. Coppa Jr. is intrigued so much by Nanotechnology. Now I am also interested in hearing Mr. Coppa Jr.'s thoughts and ideas on where he sees Nanotechnology heading towards, and what effects might prevail in the future? So Mr. Coppa Jr. what are your thoughts? Sincerely, Ruthie
(no topic) by Martin Coppa 11:20, 17 Nov 2004 (CST)
You may see my thoughts at http://wise-nano.org/w?title=Special:Contributions&target=Martin+Coppa
My belief is that we are doomed. There is hope, but on our current course, we are inevitably doomed.
[The current clusterfuck is unsustainable and mankind is now wildly overshot. Humanity as presently wired will never conserve, self limit, nor behaive responcibly. The project of human culture is only viable if we shitcan 6 billion people, and somehow get the remaining souls to limit their reproduction and material desires. (anal sex and tent living isn't just for queers & hippies).
Thermonuclear war: it's closer than you think
Posted by: hateful grumpy prick | November 16, 2004 12:17 AM
Dear Hateful Grumpy Prick, I can see that your arguments are well thought out and clearly presented, for which I deeply appreciate. We are always looking for high quality posters here. I couldn't agree with you more about the negative prospects for humanity in light of current events. For example: replacing Colin Powell with Condoleezza Rice can only result in the total destruction of mankind. And your comments regarding thermodynamics are very relevant to discussions of exponential manufacturing. Nevertheless, not all the developments concomminent with nanotechnology are gloomy. The very fact that ubiquitous access to unrestricted MM will allow anyone anywhere to destroy the world is a blessing in disguise, as many of the likely outcomes of mature nanotechnology would be hells on Earth so hideous that total destruction would be an improvement.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: Mike Deering | November 16, 2004 02:20 AM
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/11/molecular_manuf.html ]
I feel that Molecular Manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize every facet of life on this planet. A few weeks ago I had a fortune cookie which said "the best prophet of the future is the past". Looking at the past of the human race with its righteous and callous disregard for every 'externality' (as economists like to put it) in search of the ultimate weapon ( http://wise-nano.org/w/Ultimate_Weapons ) which is incredibly destructive until it is stabilized by conflicting interests (i.e. Mutual Assured Destruction ensures that we will not be destroyed by nuclear weapons as we sleep tonight), I am lead to believe that a single group that develops this technology will be capable of unleashing worldwide destruction (while we sleep) and/or demanding the unconditional surrender of all other people on earth.
[from Nanotechnology: Nature's Toy Box - Sunday 14 November 2004
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/
Amanda Armstrong: The wonders promised by nanotech read like a Christmas wish list for civilisation. Curing cancer, preventing disease, repairing the environment, and clean drinking water for everyone. And while all this might be a pipe dream, bioethcist Peter Singer says his survey of nanotech shows the benefits outweigh its potential downside, especially for the developing world.
Peter Singer: Just to use some specific examples, quantum dots, a nanotechnology platform, offer a potentially terrific technological platform for the diagnosis of malaria or other infectious diseases. Another example is water and sanitation. One of the largest problems affecting 5-billion people living in developing countries, the potential of nanotechnology and various types of nanomembranes to help in the filtration of unclean and unsafe water for purposes of drinking and purposes of sanitation. But I guess the overarching point that I would like to make is this: the history of technology shows us that initially technologies often pop up in industrialised countries because that’s where the markets are, but in the long term, the greatest effect or impact of technologies is likely in the developing world. So to take one technology from the biotechnologies, vaccines. Vaccines are a biotechnology. At one time they were high tech, but in fact they are probably the greatest mainstay at the moment of public health. They’re one of the greatest mainstays in the developing world. And there’s a good example: and so the real issue is how can we accelerate the application, testing, adoption, financing, distribution of promising technologies, using cutting-edge technology to benefit the other 5-billion people in the world who live in developing countries. And when we think about nano-technology, let’s not just think of high powered universities and shares on the NASDAQ, but let’s also think about Brazil, India, China, South Africa and other countries even lesser-developed countries, in the developing world.
Paul Hodges: Well I love such naiveté. It’s sweet. But it’s not logical. Frankly, of course it’s true that nanotechnology could benefit the poor, of course it’s true that there’s areas of these technologies that in terms of energy, water and so on, that could be beneficial to the poor, and maybe some day will be beneficial to the poor. But the reality is, the issues are not what it could do, it is who owns it and who controls it. And the ownership and the control of this technology is initially with the world’s largest corporations and with the military of the world’s largest countries. And their interests are not the poor, their interests are to make sure that they are able to use technologies at the nano scale to benefit themselves and to make sure that they actually can use such a pervasive technological tool to strengthen their control over marketplaces, and naturally will not help the poor.]
Either there will be a stabilizing effect where more than one country aquires a nano factory or (this seems more likely to me in the short term) an organization will develop a factory and replicate many of them under the absolute strictest possible environment (super-ultra far beyond top secret since the level of concealment may determine if that power emerges as the 'only' superpower as did the US after WWII [even though the US was not even close to good enough at hiding its Manhattan project]), producing, in effect, a manufacturing potential vastly superior to anything the earth has ever known, capable of producing products (such as weaponry) mankind has never dreamed possible.
[on July 1 President Abdul Kalam of India said that molecular nanotechnology would “revolutionize the total concept of war†and called on the country's scientists “to make a breakthrough in this cutting-edge technology.†Lev Navrozov http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/4/154741.shtml ]
CRN has its work cut out for it, as do similar organizations (Millenium Project, Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, etc.). Our societal mindset must shift to a new paradigm but that new path must first be carefully scouted and weighed against other possibilities.
I'm curious as to your age Ruthie, as well as your thoughts and ideas on what you see Nanotechnology heading towards, and what effects might prevail in the future. I would read your bio if you posted one (as you can see, I don't include anything remotely pertaining to an accomplishment list on mine).
Sincerely,
Martin
(no topic) by Ruthie 11:49, 17 Nov 2004 (CST)
To be honest Mr. Coppa Jr. I dont know what I envision Nanotechology will succumb to in the future. I am just a curious woman. I thought you would have interesting factors to share, which you do. Ruthie.
ICNT by Martin Coppa 15:51, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
At the International Congress of Nanotechnology, the only topic I felt needed to be addressed was by the very last speaker on the very last day, Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (crnano.org). He spoke about the implications of Molecular Manufacturing on our society: basically all manufacturing jobs will be lost (they will no longer be needed), our entire economy will shift to a new means of production where products are virtually free (much like information is free today via the internet), the wealth created will be many, many trillions of dollars (orders of magnitude greater than other speakers have proposed), and each benefit of this technology comes with a possible danger, in the case I speak of below, the invention of medical devices the size of a cell also provide an untraceable weapon of mass destruction. http://wise-nano.org/w/Mature_nanotech_weapons
Viral Machines? by John Vallis 15:58, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
Interesting paragraph on nanotechnology. How does the "sub" enter the body? What if the secret moral majority decided to attack the drug induced non believers or those lecherous same sex couples by introducing a "sub" into a common used substance like ecstasy or speed that could initiate an already common disease like aids or cancer or introduce a new one like liver failure. No one would suspect. Like minded groups like the moral majority, the aryan nation, or the bohemian club could render their opposition to be ineffective or eliminate them almost entirely. Social and physical evolution would be altered.
The possibilities are scary. There must be a balance. There must be ying and yang. For every infecting sub there must me a counter sub. It is the responsibility of the young scientists to develop new technology....and the counter technology.
Technological capabilities by Martin Coppa 16:01, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
The way I see it, "business" in todays sense of the world will eventually be superseded by different social needs. Today they are our economic foundation but what will happen when the distribution of goods and services become antiquated? Presently, I want corporations/organizations/governments to fund nanotech research that will lead to molecular manufacturing. The double edge sword is thus: nanobussiness relies upon the short term nano possibilities (a Shell representative said that there was a need for stronger drills and better tools that are needed right now) because these developments provide a means for more profits; conversely, molecular manufacturing will require many years of focused research at the expense of billions (hopefully trillions or more will be spent, as this will accelerate the benefits of this technology) which have relatively no near term benefits (profits).
John-
The "sub" can enter the body through any way a natural virus enters the body, mucous membranes (or the liquid coating the eyes), the digestive tract, the respiratory tract, possibly absorption through the skin or pores, the ears, the reproductive system, or whatever you can think of...
What if, instead of drugs on the (underground) black market, these "subs" were intentionally put into (or onto) mass market products, like say, water bottles, water reservoirs, food, coffee, clothing, toothpaste, soaps, detergents, cutlery, hairspray, hepa air filters, pur water filters, or any other commonly used product, especially ones that are supposed to help (note that vaccines contain MERCURY, which the body can never remove may be linked to autism, but these vaccines are intended to help)?
I mean, we KNOW that Bovine Growth Hormone causes sores on udders, so farmers give the cows antibiotics, all of which ends up contaminating our milk supply. Thank god J+A buy organic! We KNOW that depleted Uranium causes all sorts of nasty little problems. What's the difference between that and something that will kill you in a day? 1) it takes longer to kill you 2) contamination in "small doses" is considered acceptable.
My example of viral machines merged the replicating danger of cancer with the ability to combat the body's immune system similar to HIV. The general idea of targeted system failure is the cause of death (be it liver, kidney, heart, central nervous system, etc.)
The way I put it, with the simultaneous destruction of one or more societies, there would be no question of whether it was an intentional attack; it would be claimed by the attacker as a reason to submit to their power (like Japan submitted in WWII). When it is a gradual assassination of people, other intricacies arise, such as the cause, target, and time frame of the attack. You mentioned different groups which would each have different targets, different reasons for their attacks (different groups would be attacked), and the attacks could span minutes to years/decades. The Aryan Nation, for example, need only design a tool that will not kill whites, which could follow the criterion I set forth in my viral machines piece (they could infect the world's population in minutes).
This technology has the potential to alter evolution in many ways. Weapons will play some role, namely in the near term, but the possibility of controlled evolution of the individual will be far more dramatic. The body is made of atoms, arranged one way, you've got a crab, another way is a computer, and another way is a person. The ability to alter the physical world will not stop with mechanical processes, we will eventually be able to change our bodies into integrated systems of information. I'm not saying that we'll be able to say 'I want to be a bird' and sprout wings, but we will be able to change the atomic structures of our bodies over slightly longer time frames (hours, days, months, years, whatever). Not only will we be able to live as long as we want and remember every sentence ever spoken or written, but we will be able to travel into space. The possibility of space-flight made simple may be another huge advance, but one that will come only after several other advances. The actions we take today determine what possibilities will be available to us tomorrow.
Balance cannot be attained by us, it occurs naturally. I do feel that a desirable balance is preferable to a cataclysmic balance. Either way, we must choose to destroy ourselves or to populate the universe, continually learning and growing in the process. Our destiny will be determined by our collective choices.
I choose to exist.
Antiquated? by John Vallis 16:13, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
When the distribution of goods and services becomes antiquated? The distribution of goods and services has built economic systems and countries. It has made people and societies wealthy and prosperous. It has been a part of our survival from the time we could stand erect, possibly longer. How can something that ingrained into our being become antiquated? How willing are the people with most of the marbles to just distribute them amongst the rest. Never underestimate the effect power and greed can have on people. It could possibly be far more addicting than say cigarettes. Communism was a fantastic idea for an equal share of the wealth, but the system could not properly account for greed and power and it collapsed upon itself.
The current problem with technology, I believe, is that it is developing faster than mankind is maturing. We as a species are still struggling with our primal instincts for protecting our territory and hoarding what's "ours". As technology increases, we have become far more efficient at propelling our primal instincts, but we still are feeding off those instincts. That's why technology as significant as nanotechnology is scary. We as humans have a pretty consistent record of using good technology for dark means.
That's one of the reasons why young scientists like yourself must keep your focus on the balance. Something that can significantly tip the scales can be tipped in the wrong direction. Another is that we as a scientific western civilization have made the grave mistake of thinking we could out do Mother Nature herself. We protected our forests from forest fires, only to find out the forests need fire. We have placed leaches on our bodies to suck out the bad blood; we have sprayed pesticides on our food so we could grow more only to poison ourselves more efficiently. If we insert subs into our system to "correct" a defective gene, who's to say that the mutation associated with that defect was a mutation that could have led to the evolution of the next unforeseen environmental factor that could challenge the existence of the species. If you believe in evolution, then you believe that variation is the survival of the species. Antibiotics uniformly kill bacteria in your body, the good and the bad. If the bad is controlling your body, this is a good thing. How is nanotechnology different? How could you know what is a bad gene today may not be a necessary gene tomorrow. That’s the yin and yang. The balance. How do you keep the balance with nanotechnology?
Antiquated! by Martin Coppa 16:17, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
John, Your argument for the distribution of goods and services: "The distribution of goods and services have built economic systems and countries. It has made people and societies wealthy and prosperous. It has been a part of our survival from the time we could stand erect, possibly longer. How can something that ingrained into our being become antiquated? How willing are the people with most of the marbles to just distribute them amongst the rest. Never underestimate the effect power and greed can have on people. It could possibly be far more addicting than say cigarettes,†reminds me of an argument for slavery. Slavery built economic systems and countries. Slavery made (select) people and societies wealthy and prosperous. Slavery has been a part of many societies as an essential part of their structure, necessary for survival ('ingrained' in the 'being' of the society, particularly the ruling class, which then 'ingrained' generations of slaves into bondage). Even though slavery was 'ingrained' into the being of, say, southern whites, they were forced to free their slaves, slavery had been superseded by other factors. The people with the most marbles obviously will not willingly distribute them amongst the less fortunate; I do not remember whom he quoted, but in Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the United States, he says, "Freedom's are not given, they are taken". I agree that much like cigarettes, greed compels a person to make excuses (to their conscience) justifying their actions, namely, the 'problem' becomes an externality that somebody else will have to deal with (like slaves or in the USA of today, all but the filthy rich); in the case of cigarettes, the smoker resigns themselves to the bitter fact that their body will have to 'pay the price' someday, but in reality, it suffers every day. In our Western societies slavery has, and (with the advent of molecular manufacturing) the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services will, become antiquated. I do not expect Monsanto to stop polluting the environment or Wal-Mart to buy their products from a source other than the labor of Chinese in the pits of poverty. Corporate greed (the 'survival' of these corporate entities) is ruled by economics: they must make the most profit for the least cost/production; that's why there could be several billion cell phones for pennies but instead there are hundreds of millions for $100, economics. These organizations need not make billions of phones for the profit they want, they just have to make several hundred million for the same outcome. I think that Communism was in fact a terrific idea, as are Socialism and Anarchism, but none of these systems is sustainable today. Will our 'Democracy' suffer the same fate? Do corporate entities have more power and greed than our government can handle, even with it's (supposed) checks and balances? As the Daily Show and Jon Stuart put it in their book, A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, "Compared With American democracy, the Athenian version seems simplistic, naive, and gay. Yet transcripts of early Athenian policy debates reveal a populace moved more by eloquence and rationality than demagogues and fear mongering. Thankfully this type of humane governance wasn't allowed to take root; Athens' great experiment ended after less than two centuries, when, in 338 B.C., [the father of Alexander the Great] Philip of Macedon's forces invaded the city inflicting on its inhabitants the eternal fate of the noble and enlightened: to be brutally crushed by the armed and dumb." So the ruthless shall overcome. The 'problem' with technology is not a 'problem'. It is an incontrovertible fact that technological development is far more accelerated than the mental, moral, and ethical maturity of mankind (read http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/5/034638.shtml for more on Western mental maturity). The fact that 'humans have a pretty consistent record of using good technology for dark means' does indeed lend fear to the idea of advanced nanotechnology. Tipping the scales will destroy civilization. We must somehow eliminate the scales with ubiquitous wealth. With the availability of all physical wealth that one could desire, the necessary development prior to the development of nanotechnology appears to be a mental ability to handle the adjustment to a post industrial society. When the only things you are unable to create are living entities, what social changes will occur?
This link relates to social effects of nanotechnology: http://wise-nano.org/w/Will_advancements_of_Nano_Tech_effect_moral_values%3F
I posted this last Wednesday, it's also worth a look: http://wise-nano.org/w/User_talk:Martin_Coppa
Einstein's comments on the matter: http://wise-nano.org/w/Einstein_on_inevitability_of_war
You say balance, I say stabilizing effect; they are one and the same. As for the "defective gene", I mentioned that we would soon be capable of altering our atomic structure, be it our genetic code, our cellular structure, our macroscopic appearance, or all of the above. We shall see what effects these alterations produce. I personally feel that advanced MNT will allow more diversity, rather than uniformly 'setting' our genetic code. We will be able to stop mutations, yes, but we will also be able to initiate mutations, an effect with ubiquitous potential concurrent with much more dramatic effects. I see evolution as a series of short-term events with long-term implications. With the ability to control this, we will be able to directly 'evolve' in a chosen way, but not until we completely understand our bodies including our physiology. Nature will show us what is allowed and what is not.
So John, would it be okay with you if I posted some of our dialogue onto wise-nano.org? I won't do it if you don't want me to. This type of dialogue is exactly what the site is for, but we have each other's e-mail, so we don't need to do it on the web; I just feel like it would be beneficial to all parties if we made our opinions available to be read and responded to from any networked computer on the planet.
Antiquated! by Martin Coppa 16:19, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
John, Your argument for the distribution of goods and services: "The distribution of goods and services have built economic systems and countries. It has made people and societies wealthy and prosperous. It has been a part of our survival from the time we could stand erect, possibly longer. How can something that ingrained into our being become antiquated? How willing are the people with most of the marbles to just distribute them amongst the rest. Never underestimate the effect power and greed can have on people. It could possibly be far more addicting than say cigarettes,†reminds me of an argument for slavery.
Slavery built economic systems and countries. Slavery made (select) people and societies wealthy and prosperous. Slavery has been a part of many societies as an essential part of their structure, necessary for survival ('ingrained' in the 'being' of the society, particularly the ruling class, which then 'ingrained' generations of slaves into bondage). Even though slavery was 'ingrained' into the being of, say, southern whites, they were forced to free their slaves, slavery had been superseded by other factors. The people with the most marbles obviously will not willingly distribute them amongst the less fortunate; I do not remember whom he quoted, but in Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the United States, he says, "Freedom's are not given, they are taken". I agree that much like cigarettes, greed compels a person to make excuses (to their conscience) justifying their actions, namely, the 'problem' becomes an externality that somebody else will have to deal with (like slaves or in the USA of today, all but the filthy rich); in the case of cigarettes, the smoker resigns themselves to the bitter fact that their body will have to 'pay the price' someday, but in reality, it suffers every day. In our Western societies slavery has, and (with the advent of molecular manufacturing) the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services will, become antiquated.
I do not expect Monsanto to stop polluting the environment or Wal-Mart to buy their products from a source other than the labor of Chinese in the pits of poverty. Corporate greed (the 'survival' of these corporate entities) is ruled by economics: they must make the most profit for the least cost/production; that's why there could be several billion cell phones for pennies but instead there are hundreds of millions for $100, economics. These organizations need not make billions of phones for the profit they want, they just have to make several hundred million for the same outcome. I think that Communism was in fact a terrific idea, as are Socialism and Anarchism, but none of these systems is sustainable today. Will our 'Democracy' suffer the same fate? Do corporate entities have more power and greed than our government can handle, even with it's (supposed) checks and balances?
As the Daily Show and Jon Stuart put it in their book, A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, "Compared With American democracy, the Athenian version seems simplistic, naive, and gay. Yet transcripts of early Athenian policy debates reveal a populace moved more by eloquence and rationality than demagogues and fear mongering. Thankfully this type of humane governance wasn't allowed to take root; Athens' great experiment ended after less than two centuries, when, in 338 B.C., [the father of Alexander the Great] Philip of Macedon's forces invaded the city inflicting on its inhabitants the eternal fate of the noble and enlightened: to be brutally crushed by the armed and dumb." So the ruthless shall overcome.
The 'problem' with technology is not a 'problem'. It is an incontrovertible fact that technological development is far more accelerated than the mental, moral, and ethical maturity of mankind (read http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/5/034638.shtml for more on Western mental maturity). The fact that 'humans have a pretty consistent record of using good technology for dark means' does indeed lend fear to the idea of advanced nanotechnology. Tipping the scales will destroy civilization. We must somehow eliminate the scales with ubiquitous wealth. With the availability of all physical wealth that one could desire, the necessary development prior to the development of nanotechnology appears to be a mental ability to handle the adjustment to a post industrial society. When the only things you are unable to create are living entities, what social changes will occur?
This link relates to social effects of nanotechnology: http://wise-nano.org/w/Will_advancements_of_Nano_Tech_effect_moral_values%3F
I posted this last Wednesday, it's also worth a look: http://wise-nano.org/w/User_talk:Martin_Coppa
Einstein's comments on the matter: http://wise-nano.org/w/Einstein_on_inevitability_of_war
You say balance, I say stabilizing effect; they are one and the same.
As for the "defective gene", I mentioned that we would soon be capable of altering our atomic structure, be it our genetic code, our cellular structure, our macroscopic appearance, or all of the above. We shall see what effects these alterations produce. I personally feel that advanced MNT will allow more diversity, rather than uniformly 'setting' our genetic code. We will be able to stop mutations, yes, but we will also be able to initiate mutations, an effect with ubiquitous potential concurrent with much more dramatic effects. I see evolution as a series of short-term events with long-term implications. With the ability to control this, we will be able to directly 'evolve' in a chosen way, but not until we completely understand our bodies including our physiology.
Nature will show us what is allowed and what is not.
Slavery by John Vallis 16:29, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
One key aspect of slavery that you may have overlooked is that slavery is still very tied into the distribution of goods and services. The wealth that comes from supply and demand. Slavery was just an attempt to manufacture or cultivate goods at a minimal cost.
I am having difficulty grasping the idea that the advent of nanotechnology will eliminate the need for supply and demand. That’s different than using machines to create goods from inexpensive and plentiful resources like sand. Trying to imagine a world with no need for supply and demand is almost as difficult as trying to imagine what the "space" is between atoms. Suppose for example that nano technology was able to create machines that could create diamond structures far stronger than any other substance from sand. My tendency is to believe that the items of scarcity that we currently place a greater value on than others would dramatically change, but not go away. In this case, diamonds would lose great value, but sand may gain value. Is some sand better than others? What about the components that make the nano machines, can those be restructured from any mass also? How does this fit with the physical law that mass cannot be created or destroyed?
Even though nano machines can restructure molecules to create diamonds from sand, do they need a lot of sand to convert it to a diamond structure? I am assuming that restructuring the molecules will also change their mass and density. Am I off base here or do we still have a supply & demand situation?
Til next time, John
Exciting possibilities by Martin Coppa 16:43, 30 Nov 2004 (CST)
The very fact that slavery WAS the distribution of goods and services was intended to support my argument, not to negate my argument. Slavery is one aspect of the distribution of goods and services, supply and demand, economics. All will be changed forever when technology as-we-know-it is replaced. I'd like to quote a few paragraphs from Drexler's book Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution,
The United States has become famous for its obsession with the next year's elections and the next quarter's profits, and the future be damned. Nonetheless, we are writing for normal human beings who feel that the future matters–ten, twenty, perhaps even thirty years from now—for people who care enough to try to shift the odds for the better. Making wise choices with an eye to the future requires a realistic picture of what the future can hold. What if most pictures of the future today are based on the wrong assumptions?
Here are a few of today's common assumptions, some so familiar that they are seldom stated:
Industrial development is the only alternative to poverty.
Many people must work in factories.
Greater wealth means greater resource consumption.
Logging, mining, and fossil-fuel burning must continue.
Manufacturing means polluting.
Third World development would doom the environment.
These all depend on a more basic assumption:
Industry as we know it cannot be replaced.
Some further common assumptions:
The twenty-first century will basically bring more of the same.
Today's economic trends will define tomorrow's problems.
Spaceflight will never be affordable for most people.
Forests will never grow beyond Earth.
More advanced medicine will always be more expensive.
Even highly advanced medicine won't be able to keep people healthy.
Solar energy will never become really inexpensive.
Toxic wastes will never be gathered and eliminated.
Developed land will never be returned to wilderness.
There will never be weapons worse than nuclear missiles.
Pollution and resource depletion will eventually bring war or collapse.
These, too, depend on a more basic assumption:
Technology as we know it will never be replaced.
These commonplace assumptions paint a future full of terrible dilemmas, and the notion that a technological change will let us escape from them smacks of the idea that some technological fix can save the industrial system. The prospect, though, is quite different: The industrial system won't be fixed, it will be junked and recycled. The prospect isn't more industrial wealth ripped from the flesh of the Earth, but green wealth unfolding from processes as clean as a growing tree. Today, our industrial technologies force us to choose better quality or lower cost or greater safety or a cleaner environment. Molecular manufacturing, however, can be used to improve quality and lower costs and increase safety and clean the environment. The coming revolutions in technology will transcend many of the old, familiar dilemmas. And yes, they will bring fresh, equally terrible dilemmas.
Molecular nanotechnology will bring thorough and inexpensive control of the structure of matter. We need to understand molecular nanotechnology in order to understand the future capabilities of the human race. This will help us see the challenges ahead, and help us plan how best to conserve values, traditions, and ecosystems through effective policies and institutions. Likewise, it can help us see what today's events mean, including business opportunities and possibilities for action. We need a vision of where technology is leading because technology is a part of what human beings are, and will affect what we and our societies can become.
The consequences of the coming revolutions will depend on human actions. As always, new abilities will create new possibilities both for good and for ill. We will discuss both, focusing on how political and economic pressures can best be harnessed to achieve good ends. Our answers will not be satisfactory, but they are at least a beginning.
In later chapters, we'll say more about what researchers are doing today, about where their work is leading, and about the problems and choices ahead. To get a sense of the consequences, though, requires a picture of what nanotechnology can do. This can be hard to grasp because past advanced technologies–microwave tubes, lasers, superconductors, satellites, robots, and the like–have come trickling out of factories, at first with high price tags and narrow applications. Molecular manufacturing, though, will be more like computers: a flexible technology with a huge range of applications. And molecular manufacturing won't come trickling out of conventional factories as computers did: it will replace factories and replace or upgrade their products. This is something new and basic, not just another twentieth-century gadget. It will arise out of twentieth-century trends in science, but it will break the trend-lines in technology, economics, and environmental affairs.
Calculators were once thousand-dollar desktop clunkers, but microelectronics made them fast and efficient, sized to a child's pocket and priced to a child's budget. Now imagine a revolution of similar magnitude, but applied to everything else.
Trees use air, soil, and sunlight to make wood, and wood is cheap enough to burn. Nanotechnology can do likewise, making products as cheap as wood–even products like supercomputers, air conditioners, and solar cells to power them. The resulting economics may even keep tropical forests from being burned. Chapter 7 will discuss how costs can fall low enough to make material wealth for the Third World easy to achieve.
When supercomputers are as cheap to produce as trees are today, will our current economic system remain? Manufactured products will no longer require substantial infrastructure to create, and distribute goods: these products gan be made where they are needed, as cleanly and inexpensively as trees, but much faster.
First and foremost, "sand" is mainly silicon whereas diamond is composed of carbon and hydrogen. Dirt, on the other hand, is very carbon/hydrogen rich and would be an excellent source of these elements in the production of diamond products. Using photosynthesis, plants also convert CO2 into useful carbon and O2 byproduct. As for scarcity, only those material objects that cannot be reproduced (friends, family, objects with religious or social significance [Shroud of Turin, pieces of the Berlin wall], Earth, the Sun, the solar system) will have great value, as they do today. Other products (solar cells, energy storage devices [batteries], computers, rockets, nanomachines including molecular mills, molecular assemblers, and nanofactories) will all be manufacturable given enough sunlight (energy), resources (dirt, sand, metals, old products that are no longer needed), and time (whatever is needed to manufacture a particular product). Your comment about sand increasing its value raises a good point: with the ability to manufacture sophisticated products where and when they are needed (and recycle those that outlive their usefulness, including excess nanofactories), the rare elements may be the only material products that maintain their value. There is only so much gold on the planet. While carbon nanotubes may be good conductors of electricity, are they better than gold? The next step after nanotechnology is likely to be the manipulation of atomic nuclei, but that is far in the future.
I'm sure that some sources of material will be better than others, but most sources will be good enough to not be prohibitively hard to use. The components of nanomachines will be of the same materials from which our DNA, our cells, and our bodies, are made. There seems to be plenty of it to go around! Mass can be converted! Mass is proportional to energy and the two are interchangeable; the total energy of the universe is constant. This won't be so important in the early stages of nanotech, but as our technology develops, it may become more important. You might look up 'hawking's radiation' on wikipedia.org for a different perspective on the constant energy of the universe. Restructuring molecules will change their mass, and depending on what's added, their density. The general idea is that you keep adding atoms to the workpiece and eventually you end up with this incredibly compact, sophisticated, and strong product, like a 'pocket' supercomputer.
When each person (or group of people) has access to a nanofactory, they will be able to make all the tools that they could possibly need: agricultural/hydroponic tools, transport devices, communications devices including super sophisticated computers, and any other material object they could need; all from the materials around them, without any need to transport these products from anywhere else.
