Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: panix!alexis@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Alexis Rosen) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Nanotech Economy Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 17:36:54 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY Lines: 87 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: >[quotes from articles, and comments about nanotech's effect on > economic independance.] > ...But now I will raise another question: the ability of Joe >Average to manage complexity. > >Just now, any number of amazing technological feats are possible. >For example, a person of average means (by western standards) may >purchase a personal computer, and then download 1 GB of free software, >compile it, and run it to advantage. > >In practice, however, only the tiniest minority of persons of average >means are actually doing this. Why? Because it is too hard for most >people to do. Thousands of software packages exist, but who can >effectively use more than 1--20 of them? > [ and lots of other good (but not particularly original?) comments ] >So the real barrier to widespread use of nanotechnology will probably >not be energy, laws, raw materials, or whatever, but rather, how >simple it can be made to use. If the technology requires time, patience, >years of training, etc., to exploit, we will still need elaborate >division of labor and massive organizations to use it. This will >keep it out of the hands of Joe Average more effectively than any >other factor. These arguments are not unreasonable but they fail to fully appreciate the rule-shattering nature of the singularity... Yes, in the first few years when we acheive "real" nanotech (a large subset of what Drexler describes, say), this may be an issue. People will always fear technology. But soon enough this won't matter. Joe average will self- evolve into a creature which may or may not have any physical resmblance to modern man. (This has been discussed before in this group.) He will _also_ recreate his own _mind_. I know one of the first things I do (after I fix my eyesight and bad back :-) is grow my brain capacity and speed by at least six orders of magnitude. (Working from rough numbers of what should be possible, based on EoC and what I've read here.) There's too much to learn to stay biologically _stupid_, which is what we all are. Of course, Joe Average may well fear and hate smart people as much as he does technology, but this will surely be the ultimate example of peer pressure... "Gee, I'll have to become another pointy-headed supergenius, because otherwise none of my friends will talk to me anymore..." (Poor choice of words perhaps- I mean, "pointy-headed" might not be just an expression, in the age of nanotech. :-) All of the above notwithstanding, I have two objections to this entire argument. 1) I'm still not convinced we can overcome the graygu problem. I'm also not convinced that anyone understands the subtleties enough to say anything intelligent about this. So it's not worth more than a passing mention. 2) More importantly, I'm guilty myself (in the above paragraphs) of the same thing I accused Daniel of- overly limited vision. Like the graygu problem, though, I don't see how we can even approach this subject intelligently. When you're a million times smarter than you are today, what will be important to you? Will creativity still be a mystery? Will key "human" things, basic things like material and emotional desires, still have meaning? The point is, achieving "real" nanotech means that you've pretty much won the game of life, as we know it. Since I'm not Mr. Spock (I don't even play him on TV :-) I'm not going to hazard any guesses about life as we _don't_ know it. Here's a truly dismal thought: What happens to an organism which has no challenges to overcome? (Couch potatoes need not answer.) --- Alexis Rosen Owner/Sysadmin, PANIX Public Access Unix {cmcl2,apple}!panix!alexis [ "The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveler returns--puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all, And the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action." Remember that "Hamlet" was a tragedy. --JoSH]