In article <4najc4$o7c@foglet.rutgers.edu>, <jlg20@britain.eu.net> wrote:
>Drexler makes the valid point that at every stage in nano development, there
>are payoffs and profits. I'm wondering who is going to make the final step,
>to a general-purpose (if not very efficient) assembly system (given that
>development happens in the western world)
Probably, at a certain point, nanotech would be liberated by 'hackers' from capitalism. If anybody tried to halt it, it would be like Canute telling the tide to stop.
> Assuming we don't all turn socialist within the next thirty years, at the
>point where scientists start to realise that an assembly system is within
>reach, they are going to think 'How are we going to make money out of this?'
>The only way they could is to rigorously control distribution, cracking down
>very hard on piracy and copying: they would still charge a lot (but less
>than current prices) for contemporary but nanofabricated objects.
Beyond a certain point, this will become impossible. If authorites tried to do this with force, the scenarios about using nanotech for terrorism would start coming true. They cannot win.
Utopian revolutionaries would give them a choice. Our way or no way. When such things are possible there is no stopping hem.
> If they think that they are going to give it away, I have the feeling
>that a lot of people would be extremely unhappy. And would industrialists
>willingly distribute an item which is by definition easily piratable (or at
>least able to produce competing products) and would do away with the
>positions that made them powerful?
This will not happen in the next 30 years. Or even 100, I doubt. Patents expire and there is no stopping this by big business. Smal business will start usingnanotech from day one and when patents expire can use these techniques free of charge. Once loose on the world, no monopoly can be maintained. Big business will not make it's money from the technology. But from designing new products. You may have your home assembler box, but if you want the latest hot fad gadget or medicine, you'd have to buy the design encoded with a limited use encoded system. The difference between the floppy and the softawre on it. Factories wil be passe, design house will be the money makers.
Brainpower and expertise will be the money makers. Sort of like software.
> I'm unhappy with the idea of nano-hackers producing a working assembly
>system in their basement.
How about small factories that get creative? It cannot be stopped.
Development would still be extremely expensive (on
>a personal scale), time consuming and laborious. It might happen, but again,
>how would it be distributed? - in that kind of case, governments would be
>sure to crack down on it (labour protection and the like.)
> I suppose I'm asking how do people think nanotech will permeate the
>market, given the momentum that capitalism has built up.
Software to run your assempler is dowloaded over your cable system. It is encoded for limited use. Pay your fee and it is activated. You make your new sound system and the design team gets their pay.
Code makers and code breakers will probably play a lot of games. Code breaking will probably be somewhat futile.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
[Money will still be around. The number of people who want to buy ready-made far far exceeds those who want to roll their own -- software is the perfect example. Most software makers don't even bother to try for copy protection any more. In the real, as opposed to the academic world, time is more valuable than money. --JoSH]