Economics and Abundance
DavidMasterson writes "Being relatively new to the issues of nanotechnology, I have no story to offer, but I would like to see a greater discussion of the economics associated with a world of abundance that (supposedly) nanotechnology (and related technologies) will provide. In particular, I wonder what all the billions of people on Earth will do to "make a living" when their needs are taken care of through nanotechnology. It's obvious that there will be a small number of people who will be able to "profit" (for lack of a better word) from the development of nanotechnology, but what about the millions (or billions) of other people whose jobs will be displaced by nanotechnology? Where will these people make their living?"
September 10th, 2001 at 1:38 PM
Economics
Mature moletronics (more-or-less molecularly precise computing) implies 6 orders of magnitude or more in storage capabilities and similar gains in processing speed. A single order-of-magnitude improvement in computing hardware and software, including robotics, and in the various AI tools that corporations are already heavily focused on, will create significant unemployment, so these economic issues come up long before mature moletronics.
September 10th, 2001 at 2:15 PM
Re:Economics
That's true, who's going to buy products if most people are out of jobs?
September 10th, 2001 at 2:36 PM
How many times do I have to say it?
Self-Replicating Nanotechnology is going to DESTROY the money system – people will not need to WORK to make a living. We will all be living in a world where TRUE EQUALITY finally exists, and where the only 'wealth' that is sought after is a thing we all know and love called 'knowledge'.
I don't understand why people who are currently in Nanotech don't understand this fact – the money system is already being destroyed as we speak without Nanotech helping. People are becoming smarter and doing more piracy than ever before and pretty soon the big corporations of the world will be out of options and will collapse due to their greed. How can ANY intelligent person say there is going to be a future filled with money, when the signs are already around us telling us that the money system, (in all countries), is breathing its last breaths?
So, to answer your question, humans will evolve to the point where they will help each other survive in a universe that is not forgiving. We all shall be as gods, and we will no longer be plagued with the braindead ideals of our pathetic ancestors.
September 10th, 2001 at 3:37 PM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
The elimination of money is an amazing prediction with no historical support. For thousands of years people have bartered their time, products, and services. Money is a highly useful tool for standardizing this barter, especially time. As we have to spend less and less time working hard to earn our food, clothing, and shelter we will begin to barter our time as our #1 item for sale. Money will always be used as the standard for bartered time. I cannot possibly compare an hour of my time to an hour of yours, only through the use of monetary instruments can we come to some agreement on the relative value of our 24 hours/day. Corporations will always need skilled labor and workers will always demand negotiable instruments as their "pay". Money cannot possibly disappear as long as there exist employers who need time from people who must be compensated. Perhaps in the distant future people will give their time freely to companies making things which everybody gets for free. I would guess those days are roughly 500 years in the future.
September 10th, 2001 at 3:53 PM
Re:Economics
Doubtful. As pointed out by Eric, in Nanosystems, pg 264, the number of structures that can be built in a cubic nanometer is 10^148. The number of pathways by which those structures can be manufactured is a much larger number. So even with entire planets turned into molecular electronic computers, there will not be enough computing capacity to explore all of the design and assembly space that is available. In the future people will not be employed in manufacturing but in designing those things that can be manufactured. The CAD and AI tools used in the aerospace, automobile and microelectronics industries hasn't eliminated the jobs for designers, they have just allowed the designers to graduate to ever increasingly sophisticated levels of design. I don't think that process is likely to end anytime soon.
September 10th, 2001 at 4:28 PM
Economics and Abundance
Personally, I suspect that a lot of stuff we currently pay for will indeed become free, but not everything. Material goods, at least up to a certain size may eventually just be 'harvested' from properly designed nano factories. After the initial investment (and royalty payments on the patent?) they might be 'free' in the same way that subsequent generations of fruits and vegetables grown from seeds you purchase are 'free'. Information and services on the other hand may be a precious commodity. The programs to run your nanofactory will have to be written by someone. You may occasionally want new programs and not want to take the time and trouble to write your own. Or someone may code something particularly useful and not be willing to simply freeware it. Of course if you can acquire an AI that will do all this for you this arguement goes out the window. Perhaps we will evolve a system where the respect of ones peers for ones ability in a field will substitute for money.
September 10th, 2001 at 4:32 PM
Don't Worry, Be Happy
David, here are some specific answers:
Once we have "robust" molecular nanotechnology you will not have to do anything to "make a living". The machines will supply all of your material needs. It will however be quite some time before we get to the stage when even multi-billion-atom nanorobots can be designed and manufactured. Until that time there will be plenty of employment in figuring out how to increase the efficiency of design and how to manufacture them once such designs exist.
It may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to me. Invest in any well managed technology growth fund and you should "profit" too. Or is there some unstated assumption that only some select handful of people will have access to nanotechnology. If people really believed that molecular nanotechnology was feasible and that one group had made significant progress in that direction, don't you think the VC firms would be falling all over themselves to fund other groups? The governments around the world already seem to be "competing" to make sure that other countries don't develop a substantive lead in nanotechnology. With all of the feasible designs for a specific task and various manufacturing routes likely to be available it seems highly doubtful that any group or country will develop an exclusive hold on the technology. For example, there already seem to be at least 4 different molecules that can be used for molecular memory. With that number of competing solutions potentially available for applications, how long do you think single source suppliers will be able to charge monopoly prices?
They will do what people do now. Get loans, develop new skills and become nanopart designers, nanoassembler designers, nanofeedstock quality control operators, nanodesign verification experts, nanopart sales reps, marketing specialists in specific nanoindustries, etc. Why is there any reason that in a nanoenabled world should things be much different from the way they are today. If the amount of leisure time increases significantly because people have to work less, then the quantity of entertainment that the idle masses desire will increase, so actors, authors, musicians, etc. should experience greater demand and incomes.
There will one aspect of the future that will be somewhat different from traditional industry developments and this will be the model for closed and open systems. One can expect that there will be open source nanodesigns and relatively inexpensive nanofabs. So access to the benefits of nanotechnology is unlikely to be expensive (like LINUX now). At the same time there may be corporations that pay expensive design teams to develop proprietary (patented) products that compete against open source designs. There will likely be people who will prefer the Mercedes designs over the Volvo designs (for prestige or status reasons rather than safety concerns) who keep such corporations in business. It doesn't, to me, seem too much different from how things look today.
September 10th, 2001 at 4:40 PM
Re:Economics and Abundance
I agree with the idea that there are going to forms of compensation other than "money" that will play important roles in behaviors. If one doesn't have to work, then corporations are going to have to provide really nice conditions to provide incentives for people to come to work. The work will have to be really cool, or the management and the teams will have to be really great people to work with, etc. Because a lot of people will not be interested in that perspective, probably much more open source software (and effectively hardware) will be available. Those people will be rewarded by knowing what they have contributed to the many others who use their products. We may become a society of actors who are more than happy to simply hear the applause of an audience.
September 10th, 2001 at 6:11 PM
abundance
In the mid 1940's George O. Smith wrote a series on science fiction stories that were collected in a book called "The Complete Venus Equilateral". The last few involve the invention and consiquences of a matter duplicator. The feel is very like what post Nanotechnology will be like. One class of thing that will not be duplicatable is SERVICE. Also, things that can be guaranteed UNIQUE, especially for Art will be very valuable. A new way to ensure buying power is widespread does need to be developed to deal with the change.
September 10th, 2001 at 10:30 PM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
What are the signs which are already around us telling us that the money system, (in all countries), is breathing its last breaths?
September 10th, 2001 at 11:03 PM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
Where did you get this 500 years figure from?
September 10th, 2001 at 11:07 PM
Re:abundance
In a nanotechnology world there still would be room for professional square dancers.
September 10th, 2001 at 11:50 PM
Re:Economics
Maybe not sooner, but what about later?
If the combination of assemblers and AI leads to evolutionary capabilities, why would we need people to design new capabilities? Won't the systems simply evolve to the needed capabilities (given the time)?
September 11th, 2001 at 12:00 AM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
But what value will our time have in a world where our tools have greater physical and mental power than we have? Will our time be valuable enough such that everyone will have value that they can barter for the necessities of life?
Or would you suggest that our tools are going to become part of us so that we keep working because our tools continue to do work?
September 11th, 2001 at 12:12 AM
Re:Economics and Abundance
Forgive me, but this does not sound like a scenario that you could apply 6-12 BILLION
people to (and that doesn't factor in extended life). A few hundred (thousand? million?) people will probably find meaningful things to do, but that leaves an awful lot of bored, but well taken care of, people in a society where abundance prevails.
September 11th, 2001 at 12:14 AM
Re:Economics and Abundance
Whoops, goofed the HTML in the last message. Where's the AI system when you need it..?
September 11th, 2001 at 12:20 AM
Re:abundance
A life of absolute frivolity, especially when faced with the prospect of substantial life extension, would be too unstimulating for people to enjoy for very long. There are incentives to working beyond merely making a living: human interaction, intellectual challenge, self-growth, earning the respect of one's peers, etc. People will continue to work for those reasons even when they don't need a job to pay the rent or buy the groceries. Will paying money for the service of others remain the norm? If people are working more for the satisfaction of working than to secure their livelihood, probably not in a form we'd recognize. The closest thing to traditional "payment" would probably be the exchange of services, eg. I perform a service for you, and you're obligated to perform a service for me later. There would probably be other incentives even in lieu of an exchange of services, however; the customer's gratitude and the start of a new friendship may be all the worker expects in return for their services. Unfulfilling jobs which people now work because they need the money but lack the skills to get a better job will probably disappear. Nobody will want to flip burgers or mop floors anymore. On the flip side, there probably won't be a need for such remedial labor to be performed by humans anymore. The types of jobs that would flourish in such an environment would include the arts and sciences, software design, teaching and politics/law.
September 11th, 2001 at 12:41 AM
Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy
The worry is the "boredom" factor which is the major issue I was going toward in my posting.
Hmmm (forgot about that possibility). The "small number" was not meant to be a really small number. I was just thinking in terms of the economics of today's world — the few provide for the many (in the larger scheme of things). It seems unlikely (to me) that, once nanotech is in full swing, any more than a fraction of the population will be needed to do anything relative to its design and development and nanotech/AI will take care of everything else.
In an open (source) world, I was assuming there wouldn't be any monopolies. Of course, in an open (source) world, there won't be any near monopolies either which decreases the value of the source (why buy it when you can just copy it?).
One can but hope. Of course, the other forms of entertainment can also go up significantly (fights, crime, war, etc.).
p.s. I'm playing devil's advocate here to stimulate the conversation.
September 11th, 2001 at 12:47 AM
Re:abundance
Why? I can see room for square dancers, but why would they need to be professional ?
In a nanotechnology world, their needs would be taken care of, so why would they need money?
September 11th, 2001 at 12:54 AM
Back to kick gum and chew ass
Hello, Sharadin.
And then what will all the pirates do? No pirate actually produces anything useful, so I guess they'd all be 'out of a job', as it were. I have infinitely more respect for people who end-run around the big production houses by producing their own material. Go check out some of the projects on SourceForge, such as Crystal Space. They are actually working on projects in a way that is far more relevant to the post-scarcity economy than your uncreative parasitism.
I think you'd be surprised how often this happens today. The evolution of humanity has been defined by the tension between mutual aid and selfish indulgence. Acts of everday decency are more common than you seem prepared to accept. Your immediate response to this belief will be to call it stupid, blind or (your favourite) pathetic. This is becuase you are still playing the petulant toddler. When was the last time you exerted any serious effort on another's behalf? I don't mean burning them a pirate CD, or ranting at them about how their world view is 'stupid"; I mean seriously inconvenienced yourself?
You continue to hide your true essence of wilful selfishness and hypocrisy behind a mask of rebellion and vision. You fool nobody but yourself.
You really, really hate your parents, don't you?
September 11th, 2001 at 1:10 AM
Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy
Yeah, all those unemployed steelworkers can be retrained as molecular biologists and systems analysts.
Most people put out of work by new technology are not going to be able to retrain to the advanced level needed to be a participant in the sort of high tech jobs you give as examples. What are the unwashed masses to do?
Look at the undifferentiated pap that gets passed off as entertainment today, and the mad gold rush that ensues whenever some outsider talent comes up with anything new and exciting. Maybe there just ain't that much quality to go around.
September 11th, 2001 at 2:49 AM
The Midas Plague
There's actually a great story called the Midas Plague written by Frederick Pohl. In the story your wealth is judged by how much that you don't have to consume. The lead characters barely have the room to walk around their own homes its so full of unneeded and unwanted consumer products. That might be one consequence of the nano future.
September 11th, 2001 at 3:46 AM
Lecture Time!
Hello, Sharadin
Hi!
And then what will all the pirates do? No pirate actually produces anything useful, so I guess they'd all be 'out of a job', as it were. I have infinitely more respect for people who end-run around the big production houses by producing their own material. Go check out some of the projects on SourceForge, such as Crystal Space. They are actually working on projects in a way that is far more relevant to the post-scarcity economy than your uncreative parasitism.
You have no idea how much I agree with you! The only reason piracy exists in the first place is because people don't agree on the price of what is being asked for on the particular product(s) that is being pirated. It's like Microsoft selling a crappy OS for $200, when in fact, the software shouldn't be worth more than $5, considering the lack of quality and innovation etc etc. Maybe that was a bad example, but you're an intelligent guy so you know what I'm trying to say. The truth is, there is NOTHING in this world right now that is worth what people think it is. Do you think that Lexus that most of these 'braindead, barbaric doctors and lawyers' drive is worth the $60,000+ they pay for them? The car, itself, engine and all, are manufactured in the factory for under $900 – and yet, they ask for $60,000 big ones for technology that hasn't even been updated in over 20 years! This is the reason for piracy existing – granted, there is nothing honorable about piracy, but there is nothing honorable about ripping people off with outrageous prices on something that isn't even worth a third of what they're asking.
By the way, who says that with the removal of money from our lives, will bring about an age where there is no innovation? Do you honestly believe that money is the source of motivation and genius? The whole world believes in that garbage, but it's a load of crap – just like religion and all that other stuff in the world that seperates us is crap. Ponder this for question for a moment:
Q: What is the best way to put someone in a prison and not have them fight to get out?
A: You put them in an invisible prison that they are not aware they are in.
Money is the shackles, religion is the ball, and all the other garbage (politics etc etc) is the chain. Do you honestly believe that this garbage is needed in order to create harmony on this world? Let me point out that if every person in this world had access to higher education without having to pay for it, not only would we be off this planet by now, our technology would also be light years ahead of anything you could ever dream of. But is this the case? No – instead people cherish their precious, idiotic egos; they would prefer to point fingers saying, "I'm better than you! I have more money than you! I can enjoy life while you can clean my boots for the rest of your god damn, pitiful existence!" If this is the world you and your children want to live in, then I feel sorry for you; all of you.
Also, I would also like to say why the hell would anyone want to pay for something that could be made by a few million atoms with Nanotechnology with little or no effort? It makes no sense whatsoever; people need to realize that money is the key factor in their enslavement, but since its been here since the beginning of our genetically engineered creation, no one can recognize the real enemy. If you want to keep living in the delusion that the money is good and thinking that it's helping the human race evolve, then I won't try to stop you; I won't try to wake you up from your silly, little dream. Instead, I will eventually take action into my own hands and achieve my goal of freeing mankind from this nonsense; if I fail to do so, I will not even hesitate to destroy the entire human race because humanity, the way it acts, lives, and thinks now, does not deserve a future of any kind whatsoever.
I think you'd be surprised how often this happens today. The evolution of humanity has been defined by the tension between mutual aid and selfish indulgence. Acts of everday decency are more common than you seem prepared to accept.
Yes, that's true. We have the Environmentalists, the Animal Rights Activists, and all the other people who try so hard to protect this world (and yet fail miserabley, due to the majority of society and their incest, damaged brains). The problem is these people doing the acts of kindness and selflessness are the minority! If you were to add up all 6 billion in the world, and try to get a figure of how many people actually try and help others and the world they live on, you would get a mere 2% for your a figure. If the acts in which you speak of were so common, not only would our government be overthrown by now due to all its travesties and abominations, but you would see 'love thy neighbor' all over the place. But do you see it? No, you don't – it's all a part of your self induced illusion.
You obviously are one of those who believes that we are just mere animals and should continue to act as such generation, after generation, after generation. You have absolutely no idea what we are capable of; our potentinal is limitless.
You really, really hate your parents, don't you?
Not at all; I don't hate anyone. I just hate their, (and all of mankind's), current programming. People need to wake up from this foolish deam, otherwise they will either destroy themselves, or people like me will destroy them.
September 11th, 2001 at 9:28 AM
Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy
In kind response to the "boredom" factor, you mustn't forget the fact that we live on a tiny rock surrounded by billions of interesting planets, stars, etc. in our galaxy alone. Assuming we eventually break the light speed barrier (having plenty of time to devote to the problem) we will have more than enough to do in exploring our galaxy/universe.
An idealised society with a working goal to explore the universe first hand (i.e. not send out AI bots to do it for us and bring back VR pictures) will have an unbelievably enormous and satisfying job to do. This may not be satisfying to everyone but you would hope that a very significant part of the population would take up this endeavour and start exploring or colonizing if they are bored.
September 11th, 2001 at 4:58 PM
Re:Lecture Time!
Be very careful, Mister, about your threats. By the time your reading this, everyone should have heard about the Trade Towers destroyed by terrorist's. You should word what you say about "Destroying" Mankind a little less harshly.
and oh ya, I work for the Government.
September 13th, 2001 at 2:27 AM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
Napster? Open Source? Etc.?
September 13th, 2001 at 2:34 AM
Re:abundance
I'm sure the square dancers would think they are professionals.
Perhaps there would be room for professional luddities as well. What about luddite square dancers?
September 13th, 2001 at 2:41 AM
Re:Lecture Time!
You really need to lay off the rhetoric a little. Unless you are using it simply for the sake of humor (as I do), it makes it very hard for anyone to take you seriously.
And lay off this destroying humanity rubbish. In case you haven't noticed, you're a member of the human race.
September 13th, 2001 at 3:13 PM
Re:Economics and Abundance
A good point talking about the sheer number of people who could be effected by nanotech. As for what they could do. I suspect a huge amount of available leisure time would probably lead to whole new industries in the service and hotel/restuarant fields. Remember, the vast majority of the human race doesnt currently have the option of even going on something like a leisure cruise or resort vacation. Given the option some number will want to and its possible that 'real human service' rather than automation might be considered desirable. Also think in terms chefs, designers, artists and other 'creative' businesses, that might see both an explosion in demand from a wealthy populace, but also an explosion in numbers from folks now having the time to indulge in what they want to do, not what they have to do. Also think in terms of new jobs and challenges that might become available from the new technologies. Just to throw out some ideas for the fun of it: Terraformer, Species/Ecosystem Restoration technician, Artifical Intelligence Personality Designer, Interstellar Exploration Project Coordinator, Artificial Life and Ecosystem design, Landscape architecture for space habitats, etc, etc. Finally, there are jobs such as teacher, actor, lawyer, etc. that while they could potentially be entirely replace by AI will probably remain a mostly human or human-plus-AI endeavor for quite a while to come. I guess Im saying that whether they get paid or not, most people will probably find something constructive to do with their time to give life meaning.
September 13th, 2001 at 3:21 PM
Re:abundance
Ian Bank's Culture novels also deal with a civilization in which material wealth has no meaning. People mostly play or travel. There are jobs of a sort, but they seem to be more avocations performed out of a sense of duty to the society as a whole or because the person gets a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment for being widely acknowledged for being good at it. Bank's newest 'Look to Windard' probably does the best job of showing such of society.
September 13th, 2001 at 3:28 PM
Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy
In addition, with enough processing power (anyone for converting the North American coal fields, the atmosphere of Venus and the Asteroid Ceres into computer elements?) some could create virtual universes in cyberspace and others explore them. Or, if biostasis is perfected, the bored could 'drop out' for a few centuries until things got interesting again, or take a relativistic trip around the spiral arm or near a large black hole for really major jumps forward in time.
September 13th, 2001 at 9:27 PM
Re:Economics and Abundance
They may also find something unconstructive to do with their time (especially if AI does the majority of the constructive stuff better than they can).
September 13th, 2001 at 9:31 PM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
I agree that the money system will be destroyed,
or at least, replaced by a system (for those
who wish to "work") of barter for time, until
human services can be streamlined and replicated.
I also agree that NOBODY is fully prepared to
predict the actual outcome of nanotechnological
developement, but assuming precautions of
education and regulation are taken,
it's safe to say all changes will be GOOD ones.
However, do you have a system of beliefs?
If not, if you're an atheist or a determinist,
YOUR LIFE IS POINTLESS. People need to have
purpose, and not just of being part of a
community- that is quite superficial. Knowing
that a Divine Creator cares for you is a very
wonderful thing for most people. And aside
from hypocricy and rebuke from popular culture,
and although the popular definition of "religion"
is wrong, in that religion is a system of beliefs
and traditions _OR_ a RELATIONSHIP with a God,
these ideals should NEVER be extinguished, along
with "free will", because ideals and faith are
part of human NEED, even to our basic biology
proven in science magazines across the
country a few months ago.
September 13th, 2001 at 10:58 PM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
Yes, Nanotech is going to change the world as we know it – and it won't be in the way that anyone expects, either.
Also, yes, I do have 'beliefs' but not in a 'God'. 300,000 years ago, mankind was created by an alien race called the Anunnaki (in the bible, they are called the Nefilim) – and these 'aliens', who look just like us, posed as gods. The very structure of people's beliefs today, was created by none other than the Anunnaki themselves. We were not created to be equals, and thus, a belief in a higher power was MANDATORY in order to keep mankind in the enslavement they were originally intended for.
Now don't misunderstand me – I never did say that there isn't a 'Creative Source' in the universe (because obviously someone had to create the Anunnaki, right?) But the 'God' that people all around the world worship today does not exist, except in people's delusional minds.
For more information on the Anunnaki, and mankind's origins, please read these books by Zecharia Sitchin:
The 12th Planet
The Wars of Gods and Men
The Lost Realms
Genesis Revisited
Unlike people who are forced to believe with FAITH, Sitchin shows PROOF of how and why we were created. Do you honestly believe that our mathematics and science originally came from a human being who just decided one day to make up some quantum equation? Do you honestly believe that humans were capable of creating the Pyramids of Giza, and the Pyramids in the Americas?? That's impossible – it would take humans another several thousand years to evolve to the point where we could CREATE something like mathematics. We simply LEARNED mathematics and science from the Anunnaki – the first 'humans' who were granted this were the Sumerians in Mesopotamia; and after the demise of the Sumerians through a Nuclear dust cloud (which was caused by the 'gods' fighting amongst themselves), the knowledge was passed on to priests, who basically kept the knowledge to themselves, thinking that they were protecting it.
The stupid United States government, as well as many others, also know of the existence of the Anunnaki – but if this knowledge were to be made public, there would be complete social unrest all over the place; people would be committing suicide, just because the 'God' that they have believed in for so long, was actually a phony.
Anyway, enough of my ranting. All I can say is, please do not critisize me until you have read Sitchin's books. I guarantee once you read them, you'll be literally saying, "Holy Shit!".
September 14th, 2001 at 3:00 AM
Re:How many times do I have to say it?
(not criticism)
Unless I read them online or at a library, there's
no way I could afford all those books. I'll
look, but I doubt I'll be touting about with a
Sitchin 'watchtower' pamphlets trying to fetch
faith.
You know, from what you just said, that sounds
a lot like that movie or series "Stargate".
But isn't it a paradox to have records of
something before language/record was invented?
How about this: if these people were ruling the
earth, and were 'intelligent' enough to create us,
then why would they, as our Gov't doesn't, allow
us to know that they were here (from somewhere else)? I see no perterbation of timelines that
could result in an non-ignorant-to-the-fact
society that both benefits from education, but
is then enslaved for no apparent reason. And
what of the animals?; Did they wait all those
millions of years? And why do we look like them?
Did they engineer us to look like them, or change
their appearances to mingle as gods among us?
As a side note, you must remember that most
monotheistic people who are educated are also
beginning to believe in the God we speak of as
"The Creator of The Universe" (or multiverse),
and thereby might not be so crazed or
crestfallen. The fact that perhaps we were
created by another race of 'humans' only proves
that they would so boldly create in the manner
of their Creator (as indirectly as you can view
that, such as orchestrating the initial explosion-
not forming balls of dust with 'bare hands' ;] ).
This isn't criticism, as the critic in me would
have said much different things- so read on.
Have you read the "Rama" series, by
Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee?
You should, because they have a good explanation
of things, in their own way. The only complaint
I have about the books (4) are that they hint
that females are in some sense superior, when
we are supposed to believe that they are equal.
Also, for my immediate information, will 'they'
destroy us after we become as they 'are' with
nano and perhaps fempto/temporal technology?
Or perhaps 'harvest' us?
I still don't understand why all 'aliens' modern
WRITERS cook up are always manevolent or evil.
I once heard of a couple of students who killed
themselves because their D&D character was
murdered. But I'm sure you have plenty of ammo
for that one, so don't bother.
In the interest of staying on topic, I should
say some more about nanotech advances.
I think that since there eventually will be
some technology resembling that one in
"The Matrix" where you grow certain pathways
in your brain which resemble learning, that
you could rapidly spread this idea of yours,
and others, such as the scientologist
perspective, or the atheist perspective, along
with a "unified field theory" or whatever best
is available at the time, and THEY could make
their own choice, depending on their intelligence
factor, but that, too, perhaps could be brought
without bias up to speed.
That is, if the Nefilim don't get to us first!
(please take this post as a friendly tone)
"End of line." – Tron
November 23rd, 2003 at 6:26 PM
unemployment
the impact of nano-tech on employment will largely be a function of societies ability to adjust and the rate of impact rather than the absolute impact. in 1900 over 85% of the US economy was agriculture based. today it is less than 4% of GDP. Hey guess what 81% of those people mostly have jobs. They do more creative higher value add stuff. Expect the same. Luddites are fun but a little slow on the uptake and painfully boring at parties, so I wouldn't worry we will all have things to do eventually, even if it is only finding new ways to amuse and entertain ourselves.