However, in each case, that solution, applied to the extreme necessary to impact the target problem, would exacerbate another problem and make the overall situation worse. A collection of extreme solutions will surely be undesirable; it will either be ineffective (and ineffective policies can still be quite harmful) or will create massive human suffering or human rights violation. There is a possibility that abusive restrictions and policies may be attempted, such as round-the-clock surveillance of every citizen. Such surveillance might be possible with ai (artificial intelligence) programs similar to one under development at mit, which is able to analyze a video feed, learn familiar patterns, and notice unfamiliar patterns. Molecular manufacturing will allow the creation of very small, inexpensive supercomputers that conceivably could run a program of constant surveillance on everyone. Surveillance devices would be easy to manufacture cheaply in quantity. Surveillance is only one possible kind of abuse. With the ability to build billions of devices, each with millions of parts, for a total cost of a few dollars, any automated technology that can be applied to one person can be applied to everyone.
America has never been so ripe for Tyranny - nymag
Chemical and biological weapons could become much more deadly and easier to conceal. Many other types of terrifying devices are possible, including several varieties of remote assassination weapons that would be difficult to detect or avoid. As a result of small integrated computers, even tiny weapons could be aimed at targets remote in time london and space from the attacker. This will not only impair defense, but also will reduce post-attack detection and accountability. Reduced accountability could reduce civility and security, and increase the attractiveness of some forms of crime. If nanofactory-built weapons were available from a black market or a home factory, it would be quite difficult to detect them before they were launched; a random search capable of spotting them would almost certainly be intrusive enough to violate current human rights standards. Extreme solutions and abusive regulations may be attempted. A patchwork of extreme solutions may be created in response to the other risks described here. This would not be a good idea. Many of these problems appear to have an obvious solution.
It is likely that the price will be set closer to advantages the value than to the cost; in this case, customers will be unable to gain most of the benefit of "the nanotech revolution". If pricing products by their value is accepted, the poorest people may continue to die of poverty, in a world where products costing literally a few cents would save a life. If (as seems likely) this situation is accepted more by the rich than by the poor, social unrest could add its problems to untold unnecessary human suffering. A recent example is the agreement the world Trade Organization was working on to provide affordable medicines to poor countries—which the bush administration partially prevented (following heavy lobbying by American pharmaceutical companies) despite furious opposition from every other wto member. Criminals and terrorists could make effective use of the technology. Criminals and terrorists with stronger, more powerful, and much more compact devices could do serious damage to society. Defenses against these devices may not be installed immediately or comprehensively.
A monopoly would allow the owners of the technology to charge high rates for all products, and make high profits. However, if carried to its logical conclusion, such a practice would deny cheap lifesaving technologies (as simple as water filters or mosquito netting) to millions of people in desperate need. Competition will eventually drive prices down, but an early monopoly is likely for several reasons. Due to other risks listed on this page, it is unlikely that a completely unregulated commercial market will be allowed to exist. In any case, the high cost of development will limit the number of competing projects. Finally, a company that pulls ahead of the pack could use the resulting huge profits to stifle competition by means such as broad enforcement of expansive patents and lobbying for special-interest industry restrictions. The price of a product usually falls somewhere between its value to the purchaser and its cost to the seller. Molecular manufacturing could result in products with a value orders of magnitude higher than their cost.
Rediscovering Americanism: And the tyranny
And nanotechnology may be larger than any of the other gpts that preceded. Creative destruction is the process by which a new technology or product provides an entirely new and plan better solution, resulting in the complete replacement of the original technology or product. Investors should resume expect that creative destruction will not only continue, but will also likely accelerate, and nanotechnology will be at the core. What does this mean from a practical standpoint? Because of the advent of nanotechnology, we believe new companies will displace a high percentage of today's leading companies. The majority of the companies in today's Dow Jones industrials Index are unlikely to be there 20 years from now. (Excerpted with permission from "Big Money in Thinking Small authored by michael mauboussin and Kristen Bartholdson.) Along those same lines, josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, editor of the forbes/Wolfe nanotech Report, writes: "Quite simply, the world is about to be rebuilt (and improved) from the.
That means tens of trillions of dollars to be spent on everything: clothing. E devices we use to communicate and e quality of the air we d the water we drink, are all about to undergo profound and fundamental change. And as a result, so will the socio and economic structure of the world. Nanotechnology will shake up just about every business on the planet." Nano-built products may be vastly overpriced relative to their cost, perpetuating unnecessary poverty. By today's commercial standards, products built by nanofactories would be immensely valuable.
The flexibility of nanofactory manufacturing, and the radical improvement of its products, imply that non-nanotech products will not be able to compete in many areas. If nanofactory technology is exclusively owned or controlled, will this create the world's biggest monopoly, with extreme potential for abusive anti-competitive practices? . If it is not controlled, will the availability of cheap copies mean that even the designers and brand marketers don't get paid? . Much further study is required, but it seems clear that molecular manufacturing could severely disrupt the present economic structure, greatly reducing the value of many material and human resources, including much of our current infrastructure. Despite utopian post-capitalist hopes, it is unclear whether a workable replacement system could appear in time to prevent the human consequences of massive job displacement.
Major investment firms are conscious of potential economic impact. In the mainstream financial community, there is growing recognition that nanotechnology represents a significant wave of innovation with the potential to restructure the economy. Here, for example, is an excerpt from an analysis prepared for investors. Credit suisse first Boston : Nanotechnology is a classic, general-purpose technology (GPT). Other gpts, including steam engines, electricity, and railroads, have been the basis for major economic revolutions. Gpts typically start as fairly crude technologies, with limited uses, but then rapidly spread into new applications. All prior gpts have led directly to major upheavals in the economy — the process of creative destruction.
Essay on Decentralisation or Centralisation of Power
The temptation to impose apparently obvious and simple solutions to problems in isolation must be avoided. Other pages address the possibilities for regulation ; this one is concerned with discussing and analyzing the dangers. Disruption of rainbow the basis of economy is a strong possibility. The purchaser of a manufactured product today is paying for its design, raw materials, the labor and capital of manufacturing, transportation, storage, and sales. Additional money—usually a fairly low percentage—goes to the owners of all these businesses. If personal nanofactories can produce a wide variety of products when and where they are wanted, most of this effort will become unnecessary. This raises several questions about the nature of a post-nanotech economy. Will products become cheaper? . Will most people retire—or be unemployed? .
Crn has begun that process requirement here, listing and describing several separate and severe risks. Although probably incomplete, the list is worrisome already: Some of the dangers described here are existential risks, that is, they may threaten the continued existence of humankind. Others could produce significant disruption but not cause our extinction. A combination of several risks could exacerbate the seriousness of each; any solution must take into account its effect on other risks. Some of these risks arise from too little regulation, and others from too much regulation. Several different kinds of regulation will be necessary in several different fields. An extreme or knee-jerk response to any of these risks will create fertile ground for other risks.
pages, mm will allow the rapid prototyping and inexpensive manufacture of a wide variety of powerful products. This capability will arrive rather suddenly, since the final steps of developing the technology are likely to be much easier than the initial steps, and many of them can be pre-planned. The sudden arrival of molecular manufacturing may not allow time to adjust to its implications. Adequate preparation is essential. Crn has identified several separate and severe risks. The first step in understanding the dangers is to identify them.
Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage. Attempts to control these and other vegetarianism risks may lead to abusive restrictions, or create demand for a black market that would be very risky and almost impossible to stop; small nanofactories will be very easy to smuggle, and fully dangerous. There are numerous severe risks—including several different kinds of risk—that cannot all be prevented with the same approach. Simple, one-track solutions cannot work. The right answer is unlikely to evolve without careful planning. Molecular manufacturing suddenly will create many risks.
Essay on Superstitions Complete Essay for Class
Nanotech Scenario series, join the conversation at, cRNtalk! These pages, marked with. Green headings, are published for comment and criticism. . These are not our final findings; some of these opinions will probably change. Log of updates, crn research: overview of Current Findings. Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing, overview: Molecular manufacturing (MM) will be a significant breakthrough, comparable perhaps to the Industrial revolution—but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics. The power of the technology may cause umum two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous.