Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Nanotechnology Message-ID: Date: 2 Nov 90 01:11:35 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 51 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , pem5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Perry E Metzger) writes: >The domain of valuable objects might someday become information, or rare >materials (all the nanotech in the world won't let you turn lead into >gallium, for instance), or energy, or a host of other things. Don't assume >that just because food and shelter might become too cheap to care about that >economics will cease to function. Even if the human race completely >transforms, so long as there are intellegent creatures and they possess >different resources they will be governed by the laws of economics when they >engage in trade. You're absolutely right, of course. There will still be things of value that nanotech can't produce that people will want to trade. Personal service, for instance. A person might be willing to trade something for eating in a restaurant where the waiters are human. Or for information he needs for some reason. Or for raw materials or energy, etc. However, the point I'm trying to make is that most, if not all, of the arguments for collectivism will become invalid. Every such argument I've seen says that because some of the populace are not capable of providing themselves with their basic needs, or live on the edge of those needs, that the remainder of the populace must pay to provide for that subset. When the basic necessities are too cheap to charge for, and in fact each individual can provide those for himself with the very few resources I mentioned earlier, these arguments no longer have a foundation. Only a very tiny fraction of the populace will still be incapable of providing their own needs. That fraction can be taken care of by private charities. >poof< Dan Hankins dan-hankins@cup.portal.com dan-hankins@pro-realm.cts.com Freedom: I won't. [I'm afraid that nanotechnology won't cure the urge to collectivism, primarily because perceived need is quite boundless (the kind of medical attention referred to as an absolute necessity didn't exist a century ago) but more directly because the argument is a rationalization rather than a reason. Advancing technology has cured many ills, but stupidity and orneriness haven't been among them. --JoSH]