New Economics For Advanced Future
Fosfato
future?
I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
anything and everything?
Jordan S. Bassior
>I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>anything and everything?
Can your nanos make energy? Or rare minerals?
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Fosfato
>Can your nanos make energy? Or rare minerals?
Rare minerals? No sweat. Just switch around the atoms to creat them, or even
change the attoms themselves.
As for energy, now come on. Neither matter nor energy can be CREATED in the
stric sense. But, I don't see why the nanos couldn't creat some kind of fully
atomated energy device that transforms matter into energy, or just a giant
solar power collector.
If everyone could have almost anything they wanted for practially nothing,
who's gonna work?
Jesper Svedberg
Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
> Fosfato said:
>
> >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
> >anything and everything?
You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
>
> Can your nanos make energy? Or rare minerals?
Couldn't nanos make mining alot easier?
Personally I think that we'll have a cheap and (almost) infinete energy
source long before we can construct nanobots as good as the ones
mentioned.
// Jesper Svedberg
Dan Goodman
Jesper Svedberg <may...@unreal.org> wrote:
>In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
>Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
>> Fosfato said:
>>
>> >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>> >anything and everything?
>
>You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
Karl Marx thought so; he thought more highly of capitalism than many
conservatives did then or do now.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Peter Knutsen
Fosfato wrote:
>
> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems for the
> future?
>
> I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
> anything and everything?
Look for either Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. I always mix those
"two" guys up, but you want the one that writes the "culture"
science fiction novels (and no, each book is an individual story,
as far as I know, no endless sagas here).
--
Peter Knutsen
nanorc
> > >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
> > >anything and everything?
>
As opposed to what?
Nanorc
Jordan S. Bassior
>Rare minerals? No sweat. Just switch around the atoms to create them, or
>even change the attoms themselves.
You're not talking about "nanotechnology" then, but "femtotechnology", or even
tinier machines. (Nanotech devices would at the tiniest be the size of large
molecules). I'm not sure if femtotech is really possible (there may be quantum
problems with it). Even in that situation, energy remains a bottleneck, and a
serious one, since elemental transmutation is energy-intensive (even with
femtobots, you have to expend energy to liberate subatomic particles,
TANSTAFFL).
>As for energy, now come on. Neither matter nor energy can be CREATED in the
>strict sense. But, I don't see why the nanos couldn't creat some kind of
>fully atomated energy device that transforms matter into energy, or just a
giant
>solar power collector.
Energy is still "scarce" though, economically speaking, because a society
advanced enough to build femtobots is going to have lots of goods people will
want which will require a lot of energy to produce and operate.
Just as, today, we each individually use enough energy to power whole
pre-industrial artisan's quarters.
>If everyone could have almost anything they wanted for practially nothing,
>who's gonna work?
They'll find bigger and better things to "want". Everyone today (in the West)
can "enjoy" a c. 1800 middle-class standard of living without working, yet they
continue to work. With greater wealth comes greater expectations.
Jordan S. Bassior
>You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
It brought us the Industrial Revolution, without which you would probably be a
peasant.
>Couldn't nanos make mining alot easier?
Indeed it could.
>Personally I think that we'll have a cheap and (almost) infinete energy
>source long before we can construct nanobots as good as the ones
>mentioned.
>
"Infinite" is a relative term. A single modern commercial power plant puts out
more energy than the entire Sumerian civilization used at its height. Yet we
don't find energy an "infinite" resource today, do we?
Nancy Lebovitz
magic nanotech:
Volume (in desirable locations)
Time (both your own and other people's)
Other people's attention
Skilled work/custom design
Matter (eventually)
Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that out--
there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
I'm sure that the economy would look very different, but there'd be
some sort of trade, even if it's barter and/or informal obligation.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Rick
>
> In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
> Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
> > Fosfato said:
> >
> > >anything and everything?
>
>
It has been successful, and that is all that is required of it.
--
There is nothing new under the sun, but there are a lot of old things we
don't know.---Ambrose Bierce
Rick
>
> Fosfato said:
>
> >Rare minerals? No sweat. Just switch around the atoms to create them, or
> >even change the attoms themselves.
>
> You're not talking about "nanotechnology" then, but "femtotechnology", or even
> tinier machines. (Nanotech devices would at the tiniest be the size of large
> molecules). I'm not sure if femtotech is really possible (there may be quantum
> problems with it). Even in that situation, energy remains a bottleneck, and a
> serious one, since elemental transmutation is energy-intensive (even with
> femtobots, you have to expend energy to liberate subatomic particles,
> TANSTAFFL).
Weren't the "femtobots" those female robots in Austin Powers? <g>
William Clifford
>From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
>
>>Can your nanos make energy? Or rare minerals?
>
>Rare minerals? No sweat. Just switch around the atoms to creat them, or even
>change the attoms themselves.
>
>As for energy, now come on. Neither matter nor energy can be CREATED in the
>stric sense. But, I don't see why the nanos couldn't creat some kind of fully
>atomated energy device that transforms matter into energy, or just a giant
>solar power collector.
>
>If everyone could have almost anything they wanted for practially nothing,
>who's gonna work?
I want a big house in Tuscany with lots of with courtyards and
terraces and hedge gardens and fountains. I want a passel of family
and friends and scads of servants running about. I want picnics in the
day and masked balls at night and weddings every other weekend.
(yeah I watched _Much Ado About Nothing_ last night, what of it?)
-William Clifford
Fosfato
>Energy is still "scarce" though, economically speaking, because a society
>advanced enough to build femtobots is going to have lots of goods people will
>want which will require a lot of energy to produce and operate.
It's limited, but not scarce. For most people in modern third world economies,
energy is not something they worry about paying for very much. Even a minimum
wage flunky can afford to have electricity, and it is not a large part of their
paycheck.
With nano's a guy could have them build an atomatic yatch the size of a
mansion, that simply transforms the sea water into energy or various things he
needs. He can esentially live for free in luxury.
>They'll find bigger and better things to "want".
But that's the thing about it. With advanced enough technology their is really
no limit to what they could build for esentially free.
Simon van Dongen
>Jesper Svedberg <may...@unreal.org> wrote
>> > >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>> > >anything and everything?
>>
>> You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
>
>As opposed to what?
>
>Nanorc
As opposed to what we have got now, namelely a mixed economy?
(Yes, the US has that, too, it's just that the mix is slightly
different than the one over here.)
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'Bear courteous greetings to the accomplished musician outside our
gate, [...] and convince him - by means of a heavily-weighted club
if necessary - that the situation he has taken up is quite unworthy
of his incomparable efforts.' -Bramah, 'Kai Lung's Golden Hours'
Samuel Paik
> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if there's
> magic nanotech:
>
> there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
Or similarly, people you respect, e.g. Hogan's _Voyage from Yesteryear_,
which also has a "differently-abled" economic system.
Sam
--
Samuel S. Paik | http://www.webnexus.com/users/paik/
3D and multimedia, architecture and implementation
Solyent Green is kitniyos!
Jordan S. Bassior
>It's limited, but not scarce.
Sorry ... I was using "scarce" in the sense of "an economic bottleneck". If you
have elemental transmutation and atomic - molecular assembly techniques, you
run up into energy as an ultimate limit to what you can do with a given amount
of wealth.
> For most people in modern third world economies,
>energy is not something they worry about paying for very much. Even a minimum
>wage flunky can afford to have electricity, and it is not a large part of
>their paycheck.
I'm not talking about energy on the scale of "light my home". I'm talking about
energy on the scale of "propel my home at 0.1 C to the other side of the Solar
System cause I want to go for a little trip."
>With nano's a guy could have them build an automatic yacht the size of a
>mansion, that simply transforms the sea water into energy or various things
>he needs. He can esentially live for free in luxury.
No, he's living in "squalor". The damn bourgeoisie's got their 20-mile long
personal starships and googolbit computers to run their minds in.
>But that's the thing about it. With advanced enough technology their is
>really no limit to what they could build for esentially free.
It's not really "free", because you must either collect or generate the energy
to do it. While it's true that anything we NOW do our descendants centuries
hence will do for "essentially free", THEY will have thunk up new and more
energy-intensive things to do.
ROU Evolution in Action
Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> asserted
>
>
>Fosfato wrote:
>>
>> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems for the
>> future?
>>
>> anything and everything?
>
>"two" guys up, but you want the one that writes the "culture"
>science fiction novels (and no, each book is an individual story,
>as far as I know, no endless sagas here).
Not surprising, since they are the same guy .. he just puts the 'M.' in
to let his readers know when the book is SF-ish. 8>.
ROU Evolution in Action
Jonathan Hendry
Anton Sherwood wrote in message <7qa17h$e...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com>...
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> writes
>: Look for either Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. I always mix those
>: "two" guys up [...]
>
>The form "Name N. Name" is apparently considered American; the
>English, at least, prefer either "Name Name Name" or "N.N.Name".
>
>So is Mr Banks (a Scot) telling us that he considers scifi
>inherently an American thing?
According to an FAQ I read somewhere, the whole initial/no-initial
thing is a bit of a screwup which stuck.
Jonathan Hendry
Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7qa1oi$c...@netaxs.com>...
>In article <19990828203803...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>Fosfato <fos...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hmm. How big is your home? Just have the nano's build you a Mr Fusion
machine
>>and convert how ever much sea water or asterioids or whatever and you're on
>>your way. Depending on the size of your home, I doubt it would take more than
>>a couple of swimming pools full of water to get you their. Anyone want to
>>figure this out? Assuming it's a standard American home and the matter to
>>energy conversion is pretty close to 100% how much matter would it take?
>>
>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
Nano might allow interesting, 'organic' architecture which would
make better use of space, perhaps leaning out over the street more
than is possible now. As for building materials... if you're
patient, I suppose you could use human waste.
Jonathan Hendry
Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7qa3fh$f...@netaxs.com>...
>My point, though, wasn't exactly about available volume, or
>it certainly wasn't about building materials. It was about
>people who want their neighbors to live at a high density
>while living at low density themselves.
Ah. You mean my neighborhood. Right downtown, a street
of high-rises, but if someone tries to build a high-rise
apartment on a parking lot on the block, you'd think they
were proposing a mega-scale pork farm.
>It's possible to have some people get what they want, but
>it's not logically possible to have a whole city (or even
>a whole neighborhood) like that.
Ah.
William December Starr
na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if
> there's magic nanotech:
>
> Volume (in desirable locations)
> Time (both your own and other people's)
> Other people's attention
> Skilled work/custom design
> Matter (eventually)
> Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that
> out-- there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
Slaves.
See, um, something by Damon Knight that opens shortly after the
proliferation of infinitely cheap matter copying machines. _A For
Anything_, I *think* it is. Or maybe _Hell's Pavement_...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Otto
>Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems for the
>future?
>
>I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>anything and everything?
"Steel Beach" posits that everyone will be legally required to have a
job, and that nearly everyone will spend most of their time on strike
because there's absolutely no incentive to work.
Commodore Otto
Fosfato
>run up into energy as an ultimate limit to what you can do with a given
>amount of wealth.
Right, but that limit is pretty damn high. Just have the nanos build a dyson
sphere to collect all that wasted sun energy or directly convert the asterioids
into energy or any number of things. A lot will depend on the total population
of a solar system.
> of "light my home". I'm talking
>about
>energy on the scale of "propel my home at 0.1 C to the other side of the
>Solar
>System cause I want to go for a little trip."
Hmm. How big is your home? Just have the nano's build you a Mr Fusion machine
and convert how ever much sea water or asterioids or whatever and you're on
your way. Depending on the size of your home, I doubt it would take more than
a couple of swimming pools full of water to get you their. Anyone want to
figure this out? Assuming it's a standard American home and the matter to
energy conversion is pretty close to 100% how much matter would it take?
And their is plenty of matter out their to use. Heck, what good is Jupitor
anyways? ;)
>No, he's living in "squalor". The damn bourgeoisie's got their 20-mile long
>personal starships and googolbit computers to run their minds in.
I see no reason why he couldn't just tell his nano's to build the exact same
thing. You're assuming it would "cost" him something to change to that. It
wouldn't, or at least not in the sense that it costs you anything to fill up
your bathtub. Their is matter all around the solar system, and if he couldn't
get it from where he lives (say he lives on Earth and their are laws about
directly converting the ocean to whatever you want to use) then he just has his
nanos go off and get it and bring it back to him. Fully automated and in a
month or two he has his 20 mile long personal starship too.
Your main problem is that you are thinking of finished goods as they exist NOW.
That is they are worth something. In the far future they will esentially be
like Air is today. Now, air is finite, but it is esentially free. Same in the
future with finished goods.
>It's not really "free", because you must either collect or generate the
>energy to do it.
Actually, YOU don't have to do anything. Just tell your Nanos to build you a
couple of automated energy collectors, and woosh, of they go to get energy from
the sun, or take some matter from Jupitor and return while you're sipping pina
coladas.
Anton Sherwood
: .... A single modern commercial power plant puts out more energy
: than the entire Sumerian civilization used at its height. ...
Does that count food energy (consumed by humans)?
--
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Anton Sherwood
: As for energy, now come on. Neither matter nor energy can be CREATED
: in the stric sense. But, I don't see why the nanos couldn't creat
: some kind of fully atomated energy device that transforms matter
: into energy, or just a giant solar power collector.
Once you've designed a total conversion device - preferably one that's
portable and won't go boom - getting the nanos to build it shouldn't be
a problem.
Solar collectors are fine if you want to live in space with no
neighbors, but here on the ground they have limits, starting with
the finiteness of the light falling on a given area.
Anton Sherwood
: Look for either Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. I always mix those
: "two" guys up [...]
The form "Name N. Name" is apparently considered American; the
English, at least, prefer either "Name Name Name" or "N.N.Name".
So is Mr Banks (a Scot) telling us that he considers scifi
inherently an American thing?
--
Nancy Lebovitz
>and convert how ever much sea water or asterioids or whatever and you're on
>your way. Depending on the size of your home, I doubt it would take more than
>a couple of swimming pools full of water to get you their. Anyone want to
>figure this out? Assuming it's a standard American home and the matter to
>energy conversion is pretty close to 100% how much matter would it take?
>
of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
--
Nancy Lebovitz
Anton Sherwood <das...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> writes
>: Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>: of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>: is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
>
>HHOK. That wouldn't do any good, because the subjective size of the
>interesting part of town would likely remain the same. A better answer
>is to give the space there a significant negative curvature: that makes
>area (or volume) increase more rapidly with radius.
>
>I toy with the idea of a Metaverse with adaptive space curvature:
>travel or communication contracts space along its line and stretches
>space perpendicular to the line.
>
That sounds good. It might even work to optimize cities unless
small apartments supply one of the essential motivations for
people to get out and make urban life interesting. The metaverse
might leave you with cities inhabited entirely by tourists.
Anton Sherwood
: Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
: of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
: is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
Reduce the people!
HHOK. That wouldn't do any good, because the subjective size of the
interesting part of town would likely remain the same. A better answer
is to give the space there a significant negative curvature: that makes
area (or volume) increase more rapidly with radius.
I toy with the idea of a Metaverse with adaptive space curvature:
travel or communication contracts space along its line and stretches
space perpendicular to the line.
--
Nancy Lebovitz
Jonathan Hendry <j_he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7qa1oi$c...@netaxs.com>...
>>>
>>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
>make better use of space, perhaps leaning out over the street more
>than is possible now. As for building materials... if you're
>patient, I suppose you could use human waste.
>
if the city were completely roofed over. The ventilation systems are
left as an exercise for the student.
Not being able to see the sky would make some people crazy--either
there's a technological solution (*really* good viewscreen and
ventilation), or people like that live somewhere else, or you
have a fair number of crazy people. And rooms with a view become
the status symbol, and there won't be nearly enough of them
to go around.
My point, though, wasn't exactly about available volume, or
it certainly wasn't about building materials. It was about
people who want their neighbors to live at a high density
while living at low density themselves. It's possible to
have some people get what they want, but it's not logically
possible to have a whole city (or even a whole neighborhood)
like that.
--
jeff wiel
: In article <19990828203803...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
: Fosfato <fos...@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >Hmm. How big is your home? Just have the nano's build you a Mr Fusion machine
: >and convert how ever much sea water or asterioids or whatever and you're on
: >your way. Depending on the size of your home, I doubt it would take more than
: >a couple of swimming pools full of water to get you their. Anyone want to
: >figure this out? Assuming it's a standard American home and the matter to
: >energy conversion is pretty close to 100% how much matter would it take?
: Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
: of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
: is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
Just have the nanos make you smaller. Is there anything nano can't do?
: --
Anton Sherwood
: >Energy is still "scarce" though, economically speaking, because a society
: >advanced enough to build femtobots is going to have lots of goods people
: >will want which will require a lot of energy to produce and operate.
Fosfato <fos...@aol.com> writes
: It's limited, but not scarce.
To an economist, "scarce" means not so abundant that you can have it
for free for the asking. Energy is scarce, berathing-air is not (yet).
: For most people in modern third world economies,
: energy is not something they worry about paying for very much.
: Even a minimum wage flunky can afford to have electricity,
: and it is not a large part of their paycheck.
The energy costs that concern me are not only those of running
my fridge and computer and boombox, but also of *making* them
and all the other things I want.
: With nano's a guy could have them build an atomatic yatch the size
: of a mansion, that simply transforms the sea water into energy or
: various things he needs. He can esentially live for free in luxury.
Er, well, the yacht could eat plankton, but I suspect you have some
other idea for extracting energy from seawater. Care to let us in on
it?
It's certainly an attractive fantasy, one that floats through my mind
now and then; if the sea can support whales, it can support me, on my
Diamond Age raft, in the style to which I have become accustomed.
But not far beyond this, I think.
Fosfato
>To an economist, "scarce" means not so abundant that you can have it
>for free for the asking.
But see, I think in an advanced enough future it would be free. Just have
you're nanos convert some mass with their handy dandy Mr Fusion.
> Energy is scarce, berathing-air is not (yet).
Actually that's not true. Their are such things as "Oxygen Bars" in some
various REALLY bad cities where you pay to breath oxygen.
>but I suspect you have some
>other idea for extracting energy from seawater. Care to let us in on
>it?
E=MC^2
Just change the seawater into energy. How exactly one would do this I will
leave up to the nanos.
Heck, if I knew how to do it, I'd be sleeping with models on a big pile of
money right now instead of talking on this newsgroup. ;)
Brian Trosko
: Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> writes
: : Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
: : of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
: : is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
: I toy with the idea of a Metaverse with adaptive space curvature:
: travel or communication contracts space along its line and stretches
: space perpendicular to the line.
Simmons's _Hyperion_ had luxury dwellings consisting of rooms separated by
large amounts of physical space tied together by wormhole-doorways. The
living room is on Tau Ceti, but the kitchen's over on Barnard's Star.
Some nice effects were generated. One guy had his cellar stairs lead
downward to a 1,000-foot tower on another world, and a bathroom consisting
of a toilet on an anchored raft on a water world.
Kinda sucked when the system that generated the wormholes broke down, but
it was a neat idea.
Fosfato
> Is there anything nano can't do?
They can't seem to help Mike, Crow & Tom escape.
Randolph Fritz
>
>My point, though, wasn't exactly about available volume, or
>it certainly wasn't about building materials. It was about
>people who want their neighbors to live at a high density
>while living at low density themselves. It's possible to
>have some people get what they want, but it's not logically
>possible to have a whole city (or even a whole neighborhood)
>like that.
>
Nancy, if you look at most pre-WWII US cities, that is exactly what
you see--towers intermixed with row houses, and a few very expensive
estates on the outskirts. Post-WWII, of course, various legal and
social factors came together and densities was kept low. For a modern
variant of mixed densities, see the sketches of the proposed new
Singapore town in Safdie's *The City After the Automobile.*
R.
--
"So sit us down, buy us a drink,
Tell us a good story,
Sing us a song we know to be true.
I don't give a damn
That I never will be worthy,
Fear is the only enemy that I still know"--NMA
Anton Sherwood
parallel Earth to itself - one with a CO2 atmosphere, so there's plant
life (something to look at) but no dangerous animals ... until BEMs
show up from offworld.
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> writes
: Simmons's _Hyperion_ had luxury dwellings consisting of rooms separated
: by large amounts of physical space tied together by wormhole-doorways.
: The living room is on Tau Ceti, but the kitchen's over on Barnard's Star.
[...]
If you can stand the heat!
Nancy Lebovitz
Randolph Fritz <rand...@efn.org> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 1999 01:47:29 GMT, Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>>My point, though, wasn't exactly about available volume, or
>>it certainly wasn't about building materials. It was about
>>people who want their neighbors to live at a high density
>>while living at low density themselves. It's possible to
>>have some people get what they want, but it's not logically
>>possible to have a whole city (or even a whole neighborhood)
>>like that.
>
>Nancy, if you look at most pre-WWII US cities, that is exactly what
>you see--towers intermixed with row houses, and a few very expensive
>estates on the outskirts. Post-WWII, of course, various legal and
>social factors came together and densities was kept low. For a modern
>variant of mixed densities, see the sketches of the proposed new
>Singapore town in Safdie's *The City After the Automobile.*
What were density levels of the liveliest sections of those towns?
I wasn't just talking about cities--I was talking about the areas
with the best street scene and night life.
Nancy Lebovitz
Omixochitl <omixo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote in <7qa3fh$f...@netaxs.com>:
>
>>My point, though, wasn't exactly about available volume, or
>>it certainly wasn't about building materials. It was about
>>people who want their neighbors to live at a high density
>>while living at low density themselves. It's possible to
>>have some people get what they want, but it's not logically
>>possible to have a whole city (or even a whole neighborhood)
>>like that.
>
>example, how about an apartment building that:
>- doesn't lean over its foundations (no floor having more square feet than
>the ground floor and so on)
The taller it is, the more shadow it casts. People will be able to
see the sky, but there might not be much access to sunlight. It's
better than having things completely roofed over, though.
I'm assuming that such towers will be fairly common--one per
city wouldn't have that huge an impact on available sunlight,
but I bet you'd have some zoning problems if you tried to
build one.
>- is next to a nice, open street (the city's not roofed over)
>- has windows on every floor (ventilation)
My point about ventilation had to do with roofed cities.
>- has no cramped apartments and quite a few floors being penthouse
>apartments (how's that for spacious?)
>- has 500 floors
>
OK, I think it answers my objection if we specify that there are
relatively few sky bridges connecting the towers. I'm assuming
that intensity of foot traffic is what makes for interesting
cities.
Vision of the future: City real estate is so valuable and building
materials are so strong that cities gradually get roofed over
with living and commercial space. Access to the open air is
pleasurable and a status symbol, so people add to the height of
towers which extend beyond the roof. Eventually, the second layer
gets filled in, and so on. Occasionally, sections collapse.
Randolph Fritz
>
>What were density levels of the liveliest sections of those towns?
>I wasn't just talking about cities--I was talking about the areas
>with the best street scene and night life.
>
Mmmmm, good question. I don't know. Modern cities... let's
see...New York, the Village, Midtown...moderate to high...San
Francisco, moderate, Berkeley, moderate...LA, low-to-moderate...
Portland, NE, Hawthorne, moderate. Note that these are seldom the
most expensive residential areas, though some are upper-middle-class.
Strikingly, most post-WWII low-density cities seldom have that kind of
district; people usually go into "the city" for that kind of life. I
can think of some exceptions--some low-density places have subsidized
entertainment centers. There are also important differences between
the entertainment areas aimed at the truly wealthy and those of middle
and lower incomes. The very wealthy areas do tend to be
exclusive...pricy clubs and restaurants, and some (but not, I think,
most) are at the tops of towers and hills. Also there is seldom a
free market at work; New York City, for instance, has rent controls
and just about everywhere (except Houston, which I don't know much
about) has zoning.
Part of what makes urban life workable, and a difficult design
problem, are the number of conflicting goals individuals choose
between in selecting their living and business spaces. The lively
districts of a town are seldom the residential districts most in
demand, the best daytime shopping districts are seldom the liveliest
at night, and so on. It seems to me that if people all wanted the
same thing, urban space prices would naturally fall into rigid
hierarchies around the most desirable areas and--except with office
and commerical spaces in major centers--that doesn't seem to happen.
For other kinds of spaces there are feedbacks and non-linearities, and
these are the things that give districts character.
Jordan S. Bassior
>But see, I think in an advanced enough future it would be free. Just have
>you're nanos convert some mass with their handy dandy Mr Fusion.
>
"Mass", like anything else, is a limited resource. You have to think on a
different scale if you're thinking about that level of technology.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Does that count food energy (consumed by humans)?
I have no idea how to do the math on this, but I would think so. Consider that
a Percheron or Clydesdale generates only about 1 "horsepower" maximum, and that
a human being is only about 1/10 or 1/20 as strong as such an animal. Now
consider the size of your car's engine compared to the size of a commercial
power plant.
Fosfato
>"Mass", like anything else, is a limited resource.
So is air. That doens't stop it from being free.*
*Except for one or two exceptions with Oxygen Bars.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Right, but that limit is pretty damn high.
I know it is. I'm envisioning a far future world of VAST personal wealth as the
norm, to the point of each individual commanding considerably more energy (and
hence wealth) than the whole Earth of today does. However, I also have faith in
human ingenuity, and I know that people will think of things they want to do
which will CONSUME vast amounts of energy.
One obvious example is interstellar travel. When you have the technology to
deploy swarms of reliable nanobots, fuse normal hydrogen at will, and construct
dyson spheres, you are talking about a wealth level in which the average man
can afford to fly to other star systems whenever he feels like it.
> A lot will depend on the total population
>of a solar system.
Well yes. I suppose a masochistic humanity could breed like rabbits and thus
manage to be mostly poor (and unemployed!) with such technology. However, I
think that such societies would lose out competitively to one in which people
restricted their breeding to a rate lower than the expansion of their wealth
... as current First World demographics seems to demonstrates.
>Hmm. How big is your home?
The size of Mount Everest. Remember, I'm fantastically wealthy, like most
people in the 25th century :-)
>I see no reason why he couldn't just tell his nano's to build the exact same
>thing. You're assuming it would "cost" him something to change to that.
Mass and energy. Especially energy. And the type of matter he might need for a
20 mile long starship might include a lot of rare and heavy elements which are
NOT easy to get even with nanotech mining equipment.
>Actually, YOU don't have to do anything. Just tell your Nanos to build you a
>couple of automated energy collectors
There's only a limited amount of energy in any star system. You can only
"collect" as much as the sun generates, or "generate" as much as you have
hydrogen to burn. It's a finite resource ... not from our standpoint, but from
their standpoint.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
I live in my Mt. Everest sized orbital space hab and commute through the
datanet to the city whenever I want to be there. The real "crowding" problem
comes from speed of light limitations.
Of course, some quantum effects may propagate faster than light. If you have a
FTL datanet, then crowding problems take a lot longer to materialize.
Jordan S. Bassior
(spoiler for final episode of MST3K)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>They can't seem to help Mike, Crow & Tom escape.
Pearl Forrester did that herself, by accident. But the nanos made Gypsy a
billionaire.
Fosfato
>(spoiler for final episode of MST3K)
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>>They can't seem to help Mike, Crow & Tom escape.
>
>Pearl Forrester did that herself, by accident. But the nanos made Gypsy a
>billionaire.
Actually their is no metion that the nanos were behind ConGypsCo success.
Gypsy actually has a super intillect, it was just that running the ship
functions took a lot out of her. Once freed of that responsibility she made
her fortune on her own.
Jo Walton
das...@netcom.com "Anton Sherwood" writes:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> writes
> : Look for either Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. I always mix those
> : "two" guys up [...]
>
> The form "Name N. Name" is apparently considered American; the
> English, at least, prefer either "Name Name Name" or "N.N.Name".
Examples? I don't think this is the case. "Name Name Name" like "Orson
Scott Card" or "Lois McMaster Bujold" is very unusual here and often
leads to shelving confusion. It's percieved as American. For instance,
mt US editions of Sylvia Louise Endgahl's books have all three names
on the spines, my British editions have just "Sylvia Engdahl". I can't
see a single British example of this on my shelves, and American
(and Canadian) examples abound. I think you have this backwards.
"Name N. Name" is fairly unusual here for authors - I can't find a
British example on my shelves until "Dorothy L. Sayers". But it's
not unusual for ordinary names. What's almost unheard of is "N. Name
Name" like "H. Beam Piper" or "D. Anton Sherwood" - if someone goes
by their middle name, the first initial gets forgotten about. That
is _definitely_ American.
"N.N. Name" is of course, ordinary.
> So is Mr Banks (a Scot) telling us that he considers scifi
> inherently an American thing?
Mr. Banks' publishers, I believe, wanted to distinguish between his SF
and his non-SF, as he was known for his non-SF first. He didn't want to
use a different name, and the "M" was a compromise. He said at an
interview at Intuition that Menzies (pr. Mingies, for those who wish to
vocalise when reading) was a family name and some of his family were
distressed that he hasn't used the "M" when he first published and glad
he had taken it up.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ; etc.
Martin Bonham
> > The form "Name N. Name" is apparently considered American; the
> > English, at least, prefer either "Name Name Name" or "N.N.Name".
>
> Examples? I don't think this is the case. "Name Name Name" like "Orson
> Scott Card" or "Lois McMaster Bujold" is very unusual here and often
> leads to shelving confusion. It's percieved as American.
Just to add my 2c worth,
Lois is of course a resident of the USA (IIRC she was also born and
raised there).
McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
(The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
ed.)
She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
IIRC she has written (on the mailing list) that not even she knows how
to pronounce it 'correctly'- that her own pronounciation of it varies.
Personally I have wondered if the difference between the sides of the
Atlantic is
in whether or not the surname gains a hyphen - but I am informed that
personal preference
is more important than country of origin.
--
Martin Bonham, Auckland, (Aotearoa) New Zealand.
Home of the America's Cup
"Better Butter Bugs for a Brighter Barrayar".
Nancy Lebovitz
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <7q8mus$c...@netaxs.com>,
>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
>
>> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if
>> there's magic nanotech:
>>
>> Volume (in desirable locations)
>> Time (both your own and other people's)
>> Other people's attention
>> Skilled work/custom design
>> Matter (eventually)
>> Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that
>> out-- there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
>
>Slaves.
>
A good, nasty point. Sounds like it would take keyed replicators,
but they shouldn't be impossible.
>See, um, something by Damon Knight that opens shortly after the
>proliferation of infinitely cheap matter copying machines. _A For
>Anything_, I *think* it is. Or maybe _Hell's Pavement_...
Nancy Lebovitz
Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz said:
>
>>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
>I live in my Mt. Everest sized orbital space hab and commute through the
>datanet to the city whenever I want to be there. The real "crowding" problem
>comes from speed of light limitations.
That depends on how satisfactory visiting the city by datanet is.
Would going to a club or eating out be all that interesting? If it
is, then I think you'll end up with virtual cities, and the problem
is solved.
Peter Knutsen
ROU Evolution in Action wrote:
>
> Bitstring <37C7C401...@knutsen.dk> from the wonderful Peter
> Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> asserted
> >Look for either Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. I always mix those
> >"two" guys up, but you want the one that writes the "culture"
> >science fiction novels (and no, each book is an individual story,
> >as far as I know, no endless sagas here).
>
> Not surprising, since they are the same guy .. he just puts the 'M.' in
> to let his readers know when the book is SF-ish. 8>.
I *know* they're the same, that's why the word "two" is in
quotation marks. What I couldn't remember was which one was for
science fiction and which one was for mainstream fiction.
> ROU Evolution in Action
--
Peter Knutsen
Bertil Jonell
>
>>Does that count food energy (consumed by humans)?
>
>I have no idea how to do the math on this, but I would think so. Consider that
>a Percheron or Clydesdale generates only about 1 "horsepower" maximum, and that
>a human being is only about 1/10 or 1/20 as strong as such an animal. Now
>consider the size of your car's engine compared to the size of a commercial
>power plant.
That's extractable work, not total energy (ie profit, not throughput).
A grown man at complete rest consumes energy at a rate of 70kcal per hour,
easy activities adds 45kcal per hour, and hard work adds 300kcal per
hour. I get the average power (12h hard work, 12h complete rest) to 280 W,
or 0.4 hp.
>Jordan
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Justin Bacon
(Fosfato) writes:
>If everyone could have almost anything they wanted for practially nothing,
>who's gonna work?
With this "perfect nano" society who would *need* to?
That being said, progress will still be achieved -- I think most scientists out
there aren't in it for the mighty buck (and if they DID get into science for
the mighty buck, they're probably too stupid to be good scientists anyway <g>).
Plus I've got to think science will be a heckuvalot easier when you can just
get a plot of land and have some nanos manufacture a supercollider for you (for
example).
*That* being said, a "perfect nano" society *does* need to be completely
reconceptualized or it will rapidly collapse.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Ero...@aol.com
fos...@aol.com (Fosfato) wrote:
> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems
for the
> future?
>
> I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just
make
> anything and everything?
I don't think it will be a matter of "really different" economic
systems, but rather a matter of the same old economic systems applied to
a different set of goods.
There are certain goods given away now as a courtesy and/or advertising:
Water in commercial building drinking fountains, say, or ball-point pens
with company logo's stamped on them.
In the future, some of the now-expensive goods may become freebies
(as has happened in the recent past: e.g. ball-point pens 40 years ago
were a lot more expensive - or 4-function calculators that cost tens or
hundreds of dollars 25-30 years ago while the functional equivalents
today are sometimes given away as come-ons). Or some now-freebies may
become valuable goods: ObSF Asimov's "The Martian Way" where water (on
Mars at least) was valuable and metered & sold by the ounce, and it was
a faux pas to visit friends without bringing your own water supply.
Or even without going to such extremes, changes in the relative values
of things can and do change social customs: "Self service" is a lot more
common now than it was a few decades past, not to mention the decline in
the number of household servants compared to a century ago. Future
changes in relative values can bring similar changes in customs &
lifestyle. For example, if living in a "nice house" becomes really
highly valued (for whatever reason) then one might see the return of
household servants - they'll be willing to work for a pittance plus the
perk of living in a nice house.
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com (mail drop)
Er...@ix.netcom.com (surfboard)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Klyfix
writes:
>
>In article <MPG.1231caa92...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
>Jesper Svedberg <may...@unreal.org> wrote:
>>In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
>>Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
>>> Fosfato said:
>>>
>>> >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>>> >anything and everything?
>>
>>You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
>
>Karl Marx thought so; he thought more highly of capitalism than many
>conservatives did then or do now.
>--
Possibility of a short explaination? Not really wanting to read the whole
of "Das Kapital" just to get that. :)
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Renovations underway, Aug. 22, 1999
Richard Horton
Starr) wrote:
>Slaves.
>
>See, um, something by Damon Knight that opens shortly after the
>proliferation of infinitely cheap matter copying machines. _A For
>Anything_, I *think* it is. Or maybe _Hell's Pavement_...
I confuse those titles, too, for some reason.
It's _A for Anything_, which actually opens at the precise moment that
these machines begin to proliferate.
It's a good, scary, novel, that I'm slightly surprised doesn't seem to
have more of a rep.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Dan Goodman
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <7qach0$q...@crl4.crl.com>,
>William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>>In article <7q8mus$c...@netaxs.com>,
>>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
>>
>>> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if
>>> there's magic nanotech:
>>>
>>> Volume (in desirable locations)
>>> Time (both your own and other people's)
>>> Other people's attention
>>> Skilled work/custom design
>>> Matter (eventually)
>>> Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that
>>> out-- there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
>>
>>Slaves.
>>
>A good, nasty point. Sounds like it would take keyed replicators,
>but they shouldn't be impossible.
>
>>proliferation of infinitely cheap matter copying machines. _A For
>>Anything_, I *think* it is. Or maybe _Hell's Pavement_...
Both titles are correct, I believe.
I consider this the most ridiculous thing Knight ever wrote. Matter
duplicators result in a "feudal" society?
Ralph Williamson's "Business as Usual, During Alterations" is much more
believable.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Dan Goodman
Klyfix <kly...@aol.comgiberish> wrote:
>In article <79Px3.658$ok4....@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
>writes:
>
>>
>>In article <MPG.1231caa92...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
>>Jesper Svedberg <may...@unreal.org> wrote:
>>>In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
>>>Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
>>>> Fosfato said:
>>>>
>>>> >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>>>> >anything and everything?
>>>
>>>You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
>>
>>Karl Marx thought so; he thought more highly of capitalism than many
>>conservatives did then or do now.
>>--
> Possibility of a short explaination? Not really wanting to read the whole
>of "Das Kapital" just to get that. :)
One of Herman Kahn's books has a lovely quote from Marx (and Engels?)
about the glories of capitalism; sounds perhaps a shade more enthusiastic
than anything Ayn Rand said.
Explanation: Capitalism had done and was doing a marvelous job of
breaking up the old order.
R.D. Elliott
<rikw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
- Jesper Svedberg wrote:
- >
- > In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
- > Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
- > > Fosfato said:
- > >
- > > >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
- > > >anything and everything?
- >
- > You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
- >
-
-
- It has been successful, and that is all that is required of it.
Define successful... If you mean it's lasted, sure. So did a lot of
other things, for a time. Change being about the only certainty there is,
I'll bet that in a millenium or so, the people praising capitalism as being
ideal will look about as silly as a bunch of Sumerian courtiers (or
whatever) prattling on about the divine right of Kings to rule do to us
today.
However, I'll say that capitalism may have produced the most successful
(in just about any terms you care to mention) civilization humanity has
produced to date.
R.D. Elliott
R.D. Elliott
(Fosfato) wrote:
- From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
[snip]
- With nano's a guy could have them build an atomatic yatch the size of a
- mansion, that simply transforms the sea water into energy or various things he
- needs. He can esentially live for free in luxury.
-
- >They'll find bigger and better things to "want".
-
- But that's the thing about it. With advanced enough technology their is
really
- no limit to what they could build for esentially free.
Precisely. You should read Banks' Culture novels. They're about an
ultra-high tech near-Utopia. They're generally a good read.
R.D. Elliott
R.D. Elliott
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
[snip]
- No, he's living in "squalor". The damn bourgeoisie's got their 20-mile long
- personal starships and googolbit computers to run their minds in.
-
- >But that's the thing about it. With advanced enough technology their is
- >really no limit to what they could build for esentially free.
-
- It's not really "free", because you must either collect or generate the energy
- to do it. While it's true that anything we NOW do our descendants centuries
- hence will do for "essentially free", THEY will have thunk up new and more
- energy-intensive things to do.
I think that you may be making some certain assumptions on the cultural
(small-"c" social sciences culture). One can just as easily posit a future
society where the assumptions you are making do not hold true.
R.D. Elliott
R.D. Elliott
wrote:
[snip]
- >
- Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
- of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
- is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
-
But, given a society in which nano has transformed the economy, would
cities still exist (AFAIK right now the reasons we live in them have to do
with our present-day economy and modes of production)?
R.D. Elliott
James Nicoll
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <7q8mus$c...@netaxs.com>,
>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
>
>> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if
>> there's magic nanotech:
>>
>> Volume (in desirable locations)
>> Time (both your own and other people's)
>> Other people's attention
>> Skilled work/custom design
>> Matter (eventually)
>> Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that
>> out-- there isn't necessarily a shortage, but there might be)
>
>Slaves.
>
>proliferation of infinitely cheap matter copying machines. _A For
>Anything_, I *think* it is. Or maybe _Hell's Pavement_...
Also see Stableford's _Journey to the Centre_, where
a representative of one of the more powerful nonhuman species
argues that the most important form of wealth at the upper
tech levels is controling other people. That's why advanced
civilizations all have slavery, although not slavery in
the American model.
James Nicoll
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
Jordan S. Bassior
>I think that you may be making some certain assumptions on the cultural
>(small-"c" social sciences culture).
My assumption is that there are no limits to human ambitions, and that (as H.
G. Wells put it) advancing technology makes "what we seem strong seem weak,
what we seem great seem petty" in the fullness of time. As our command of
energy (and hence our wealth) increases, we find new and ever more
energy-intensive things to spend this energetic wealth upon.
History seems to support my argument. What people would have seen as an
adequate standard of living 250 years ago (a warm dry shelter, regular food on
the table, and some few pieces of furniture and perhaps the ability to
occasionally experience open-air entertainments, with of course occasionally
rotten food, no health care or long-distance transportation) would be seen as a
horribly pathetic standard of living today, equivalent almost to modern
homelessness (since the "homeless" frequently sleep in shelters or subway
stations, after all).
Yet what I'm describing is the lifestyle of a regularly employed lower middle
class artisan or worker c. 1750. If I came back to 1750 and told an
(unimaginative) economist that by the year 2000 such a standard of living could
be supported by the labor of 10% or less of the population, he would be bound
to wonder "But then what would the other 90% or more do ... wouldn't there be
mass unemployment?"
The 18th century economist would not wonder who would build cars, or elevators,
or TV sets, or computers, or air conditioners, or kitchen appliances, or
generate electricity, or build or operate aircraft or steamships, or trains, or
buses, or provide services for the people who did ... because none of these
existed yet in his world. By the same token, in the world of 2250, the
equivalent of a modern middle class standard of living might well be available
gratis, with the labor of well under 10% of the population supervising robotic
factories and mining operations, but I'm sure that new "necessaries" (not to
mention luxuries) will have been invented by that time.
>One can just as easily posit a future
>society where the assumptions you are making do not hold true.
Yes, but you have to assume arbitrary limits being set to human energy
production and consumption. If you assume that our society remains free, such
limitations are very unlikely.
Furthermore, being culturally / politically imposed, they are unstable. If any
significant human culture or subculture chooses not to abide by these limits,
within a generation or two it will eclipse those who do.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Precisely. You should read Banks' Culture novels. They're about an
>ultra-high tech near-Utopia. They're generally a good read.
Yes, but the humans they are about are the equivalent of gerbils. The real
stuff is being done by the Minds. Who presumably encounter resource limits,
though we don't hear about the details.
Jordan S. Bassior
> Define successful... If you mean it's lasted, sure.
Liberal democratic capitalism been more productive, both intellectually and
economically, and led to more widespread wealth and happiness, than any
previous political / economic system.
> Change being about the only certainty there is,
>I'll bet that in a millenium or so, the people praising capitalism as being
>ideal will look about as silly as a bunch of Sumerian courtiers (or
>whatever) prattling on about the divine right of Kings to rule do to us today.
>
Advances in soft technology (as in hard science) proceed by building on top one
another. The greatest intellectual contributions of Sumer to the modern world
(writing, the ideas of the corporation and the state, codified law, and
property records) don't look very "silly" to us today. And while some aspects
of our capitalist system (I don't know which, but my vote is that the
hierarchical corporate organization will probably be dumped) may look silly
1000 years from now, I don't think that private property protected and
regulated by law will be one of them.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Martin Bonham wrote:
>
> > Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
> > (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
> >
> > McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
> > (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
> > The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
> > ed.)
> >
> > She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
>
"B", unless she pops into this thread and tells us otherwise. She uses
"McMaster" as a middle name, not as part of a double-barrelled last
name.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:27:08 +0800, Paul Andinach
> <pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
> >> (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
> >>
> >> McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
> >> (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
> >> The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
> >> ed.)
> >>
> >> She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
> >
> >So should her books be filed under "M" or "B"?
>
> family name, like David Lloyd George, right?) Americans tend to
> hyphenate when both middle and last names are to be used for filing.
> Therefore, you file :ois McMaster Bujold under "B", not "M".
>
> The only other "Bujold" I was aware of was Genevieve, by the way.
>
> Now follows a dozen or so messages giving exceptions that prove the
> rule...
Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Who should be
alphabetized under "N", not "H". But the reason they have difficulty
making people understand this is because it's relatively unusual in
this country.
Lis Carey
Sylvia Engdahl
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Jo Walton wrote:
> > The form "Name N. Name" is apparently considered American; the
> > English, at least, prefer either "Name Name Name" or "N.N.Name".
>
> Examples? I don't think this is the case. "Name Name Name" like "Orson
> Scott Card" or "Lois McMaster Bujold" is very unusual here and often
> leads to shelving confusion. It's percieved as American. For instance,
> mt US editions of Sylvia Louise Endgahl's books have all three names
> on the spines, my British editions have just "Sylvia Engdahl". I can't
> see a single British example of this on my shelves, and American
> (and Canadian) examples abound. I think you have this backwards.
It was my British publisher who asked me to remove my middle name from
my books. They not only thought using three names was American, they
felt my use of a double feminine name might reduce the books' appeal
to male SF buyers. I decided they were probably right, and the trend
even here seems to be for writers to use only two names, except where
their full names are already familiar to large audiences. So I didn't
use my middle name on the American paperback reprints, and I'm not
using it on the forthcoming omnibus edition of my trilogy. (But since
I explained this in the FAQ at my website, several readers have told
me that they will miss it!)
Sylvia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CHILDREN OF THE STAR omnibus coming in January from Meisha Merlin! *
* I'm now taking orders for signed copies of limited hardcover edition *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Engdahl - Eugene, Oregon Visit my Website!
seng...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~sengdahl
ROU Evolution in Action
wonderful R.D. Elliott <SrP...@ican.net> asserted
>In article <19990828134922...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, fos...@aol.com
>(Fosfato) wrote:
>
>- From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
>[snip]
>- With nano's a guy could have them build an atomatic yatch the size of a
>- mansion, that simply transforms the sea water into energy or various things he
>- needs. He can esentially live for free in luxury.
>-
>- >They'll find bigger and better things to "want".
>- But that's the thing about it. With advanced enough technology their is
>- no limit to what they could build for esentially free.
>
>
> Precisely. You should read Banks' Culture novels. They're about an
>ultra-high tech near-Utopia. They're generally a good read.
Also try the _Across Realtime_ (aka _The Peace War_ + _Marooned in
RealTime_) by Vernor Vinge, for a comment/example of how 'richness'
increases exponentially into the future.
We already have access to almost infinite information (well, 'data' at
least) and compute power (you can put more in your pocket than a
Victorian could even conceive of), you can purchase more horsepower (and
firepower - but let's not get into gun control threads again) than a
middle age town commanded. All you need now is 'general labour' and
'medtech' 8>.
ROU Evolution in Action
Paul Andinach
> Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
> (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
>
> McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
> (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
> The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
> ed.)
>
> She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
So should her books be filed under "M" or "B"?
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
t...@rak061.oulu.fi
> R. D. Elliott said:
>
> >I think that you may be making some certain assumptions on the cultural
> >(small-"c" social sciences culture).
>
> My assumption is that there are no limits to human ambitions, and that (as H.
> G. Wells put it) advancing technology makes "what we seem strong seem weak,
> what we seem great seem petty" in the fullness of time. As our command of
> energy (and hence our wealth) increases, we find new and ever more
> energy-intensive things to spend this energetic wealth upon.
There was a discussion on this some time ago, usenet debates seem to run in
circles... But here it goes again:
IMHO there _is_ a limit to personal consumption, one could even say that the
high end of _our_ society is starting to hit it. Your ass can sit only on
one chair at time and there is definite limit to the amount of Caviar you
can stuff down your gullet.
ObSF: _Midas World_ by Frederik Pohl
(example of 1750 artisan snipped)
Counterexample: How much was that life different from artisan in Roman Empire
around 0BC? Not too much by modern measure. Extrapolating from near-linear
history is difficult when tech development is hitting exponential.
> The 18th century economist would not wonder who would build cars, or elevators,
> or TV sets, or computers, or air conditioners, or kitchen appliances, or
> generate electricity, or build or operate aircraft or steamships, or trains, or
> buses, or provide services for the people who did ... because none of these
> existed yet in his world. By the same token, in the world of 2250, the
> equivalent of a modern middle class standard of living might well be available
> gratis, with the labor of well under 10% of the population supervising robotic
> factories and mining operations, but I'm sure that new "necessaries" (not to
> mention luxuries) will have been invented by that time.
Most people have a deep-seated desire to be _useful_ in some capacity, despite
Republican claims on 'welfare queens'. One could even think that rise of civil
sector jobs in last few decades is a direct result from this.
--
Tapio Erola t...@rieska.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please)
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known."
-- Frank Herbert, Dune, Manual of MuadDib by Princess Irulan
Peter H. Granzeau
>> Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
>> (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
>>
>> McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
>> (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
>> The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
>> ed.)
>>
>> She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
>
>So should her books be filed under "M" or "B"?
Unlike the British practice (usually a middle name is part of the
family name, like David Lloyd George, right?) Americans tend to
hyphenate when both middle and last names are to be used for filing.
Therefore, you file :ois McMaster Bujold under "B", not "M".
The only other "Bujold" I was aware of was Genevieve, by the way.
Now follows a dozen or so messages giving exceptions that prove the
rule...
--
Regards, PHG
To reply by mail, send to PGranzeau at the same site)
Jordan S. Bassior
>IMHO there _is_ a limit to personal consumption, one could even say that the
>high end of _our_ society is starting to hit it.
Hee hee hee, it's the old "we've gone about as fer as we can go!" argument :)
>Your ass can sit only on
>one chair at time and there is definite limit to the amount of Caviar you
>can stuff down your gullet.
How many air conditioners can you use now? How many did people use in 1900?
How many TV's can you use now? How many in 1925?
How many microwave ovens can you own now? How many did individuals use in 1950?
How many computers can you own now? How many could you own in 1975?
Do you really believe that c. 2000 an iron wall will descend and a great voice
boom out "this far, but no farther?"
>(example of 1750 artisan snipped)
>
>Counterexample: How much was that life different from artisan in Roman Empire
>around 0BC? Not too much by modern measure.
True. But quite a lot by the measure of the man from 1750. Technological
differences that we see as minor can be quite major from the viewpoint of the
man with the earlier technology. Among other thing, the 1750 artisan's house
was sturdier and more comfortable, and his tools better, than that of his
Ancient counterpart.
Stoneface
wrote:
>Actually, YOU don't have to do anything. Just tell your Nanos to build you a
>couple of automated energy collectors, and woosh, of they go to get energy from
>the sun, or take some matter from Jupitor and return while you're sipping pina
>coladas.
Your assuming that your nanos have access to some kind of
database with all the information needed, and that this info
will be free for the taking. With material things nearly
valueless I would think Intellectual Property would jealousy
guarded.
--
Stoneface
Everything that can be counted doesn't necessarily count;
everything that counts can't necessarily be counted.
(Einstein)
t...@rak061.oulu.fi
> Txr said:
>
> >IMHO there _is_ a limit to personal consumption, one could even say that the
> >high end of _our_ society is starting to hit it.
>
> Hee hee hee, it's the old "we've gone about as fer as we can go!" argument :)
No. There will be development. It's just that it's getting qualitative rather than
quantitative which is the point.
> >Your ass can sit only on
> >one chair at time and there is definite limit to the amount of Caviar you
> >can stuff down your gullet.
>
> How many air conditioners can you use now? How many did people use in 1900?
Depends on efficiency. If you use too many, you'll just catch cold ;)
One should note that slaves fanning at you to keep you cool tend to be rare
today...
> How many TV's can you use now? How many in 1925?
One. After that splitting attention between screens tends to split your mind.
It should also be noted that there are not too many newsmovies around today.
> How many microwave ovens can you own now? How many did individuals use in 1950?
As many as you want. Making use of more than one or two is more troublesome... Same
goes for 'normal' owens of fifties.
> How many computers can you own now? How many could you own in 1975?
As many as your budget affords. However, using more than one of them at time is more
troublesome...
> Do you really believe that c. 2000 an iron wall will descend and a great voice
> boom out "this far, but no farther?"
No. I just believe that one person can do only so much in 24 hours of day by himself.
_That_ is the limiting factor I'm talking about.
> >(example of 1750 artisan snipped)
> >
> >Counterexample: How much was that life different from artisan in Roman Empire
> >around 0BC? Not too much by modern measure.
>
> True. But quite a lot by the measure of the man from 1750. Technological
> differences that we see as minor can be quite major from the viewpoint of the
> man with the earlier technology. Among other thing, the 1750 artisan's house
> was sturdier and more comfortable, and his tools better, than that of his
> Ancient counterpart.
Transplant that artisan 1750 years and I'm sure he could adapt to and _understand_
those technological changes without altering his worldview too much. Explaining
computers or laser to someone even from 1850 is somewhat ...different.
t...@rak061.oulu.fi
> On 29 Aug 1999 00:38:03 GMT, fos...@aol.com (Fosfato)
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, YOU don't have to do anything. Just tell your Nanos to build you a
> >couple of automated energy collectors, and woosh, of they go to get energy from
> >the sun, or take some matter from Jupitor and return while you're sipping pina
> >coladas.
>
> Your assuming that your nanos have access to some kind of
> database with all the information needed, and that this info
> will be free for the taking. With material things nearly
> valueless I would think Intellectual Property would jealousy
> guarded.
Not necessarily. Copying those databases would be as easy as
copying computer software today and I'd rather assume that there would
be public-domain designs for most common equipment available, designed
in Open-Source process or something equivalent.
GNU Griffin v.2.44pl3 transatmospheric shuttle anyone?
Jordan S. Bassior
>No. There will be development. It's just that it's getting qualitative rather
>than quantitative which is the point.
We're standing on the threshhold of immense increases both in available power
(fusion and space-based SPS) and power demands (interplanetary spaceflight, to
take one obvious energy-hog). We have not yet gotten anywhere near developing
all the technological possibilites made possible by the physics we know, and
are pretty sure that there's considerable amounts of physics we don't yet know.
To claim that we won't build stuff much bigger or more powerful, or be
significantly wealthier, than we are today, is pretty funny. You're kind of
like that US Patent Office chief who around 1890 or so declared that the office
should be shut down because "we've invented everything".
>Depends on efficiency. If you use too many, you'll just catch cold ;)
One per room, or one very powerful central unit. But before they were invented,
you couldn't use any.
>One should note that slaves fanning at you to keep you cool tend to be rare
>today...
Or servants. Because with greater overall wealth, people demand entirely too
much compensation for that sort of job, and air conditioners does it easier.
>One. After that splitting attention between screens tends to split your mind.
I have three TV's in active use ... one in my house and two in an apartment I
rent. It's fairly common today to have a TV in each bedroom, and one in the
living room. At least in America it is.
>It should also be noted that there are not too many newsmovies around today.
I suspect that FAR more people are employed building and marketing TV's than
were ever employed making and showing newsreels.
>As many as you want. Making use of more than one or two is more
>troublesome... Same
>goes for 'normal' owens of fifties.
Most people nowadays own a "normal" gas or electric oven, plus a microwave or
two
>As many as your budget affords. However, using more than one of them at time
>is more troublesome...
Using even one before the invention of the TRS-80, Apple, IBM-PC etc. was
impossible.
>No. I just believe that one person can do only so much in 24 hours of day by
himself.
>_That_ is the limiting factor I'm talking about.
(1) Even given that limiting factor, what he does can require more and more
expensive toys. It has so far.
(2) That limiting factor recedes when technological improvement also improves
the human mind itself.
>Transplant that artisan 1750 years and I'm sure he could adapt to and
>_understand_
>those technological changes without altering his worldview too much.
>Explaining
>computers or laser to someone even from 1850 is somewhat ...different.
But not impossible. Incidentally, the biggest mutual problem relating to the
English and the Roman artisan would be a soft-technological one ... charismatic
monotheism.
Lucy Kemnitzer
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Who should be
>alphabetized under "N", not "H". But the reason they have difficulty
>making people understand this is because it's relatively unusual in
>this country.
Except when the names are Spanish, and those families often give
up and drop the maternal name because there's no space on the
forms for them.
It was interesting filling out the many forms we had to fill out
in Mexico -- some of them had two spaces for surname, and others
had one big one.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Stephen Taylor
>>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
> I live in my Mt. Everest sized orbital space hab and commute through the
> datanet to the city whenever I want to be there. The real "crowding" problem
> comes from speed of light limitations.
I live on the edge of a large and pleasant park. A ten minute walk
through that park takes me to the edge of a high density area of good
restaurants, clothing shops, theatres, pubs, bookshops... I'm right in
the middle of three public transport routes (two tramlines and a train),
any of which can quickly take me into the city to work. No need for a
car for any of this any point, which is a major plus.
It's a plum position, and there's sadly no way I could afford to buy a
house in this area. I think this is the sort of thing Nancy's talking
about, and I don't see how either nanotech or bandwidth would help make
this sort of lifestyle cheaper. (No, I *don't* want to telecomute via
VR).
> Jordan
Steve
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Taylor st...@afs.net.au
Applied Financial Services
Phone: +61 3 9691 3320
Stephen Taylor
> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems for the
> future?
>
> I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
_A for Anything_ by (??) Damon Knight has the world transformed by magic
duplicating machines (close enough to magic nanotech in economic
effect).
Pretty quickly some people realise that the only thing left of value is
service, and in the turmoil, institute a slave society.
Dark, but cute.
S.
Niall McAuley
> Long before that, I dimly recall a story in which each house has a
> parallel Earth to itself - one with a CO2 atmosphere, so there's plant
> life (something to look at) but no dangerous animals ... until BEMs
> show up from offworld.
Parallel universe Nazis too.
"Living Space" by Isaac Asimov.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es]
Jo Walton
pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au "Paul Andinach" writes:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Martin Bonham wrote:
>
> > Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
> > (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
> >
> > McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
> > (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
> > The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
> > ed.)
> >
> > She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
>
> So should her books be filed under "M" or "B"?
B. I explained this to one local bookshop, who were embarrassingly pleased
to know.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ; etc.
Nancy Lebovitz
Stephen Taylor <st...@afs.net.au> wrote:
>Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
>
>>>Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
>>>of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>>>is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
>> I live in my Mt. Everest sized orbital space hab and commute through the
>> datanet to the city whenever I want to be there. The real "crowding" problem
>> comes from speed of light limitations.
>
>I live on the edge of a large and pleasant park. A ten minute walk
>through that park takes me to the edge of a high density area of good
>restaurants, clothing shops, theatres, pubs, bookshops... I'm right in
>the middle of three public transport routes (two tramlines and a train),
>any of which can quickly take me into the city to work. No need for a
>car for any of this any point, which is a major plus.
>
>It's a plum position, and there's sadly no way I could afford to buy a
>house in this area. I think this is the sort of thing Nancy's talking
>about, and I don't see how either nanotech or bandwidth would help make
>this sort of lifestyle cheaper. (No, I *don't* want to telecomute via
>VR).
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
R.D. Elliott <SrP...@ican.net> wrote:
>In article <7qa1oi$c...@netaxs.com>, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz)
>wrote:
>
>- of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting (that
>- is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
> But, given a society in which nano has transformed the economy, would
>cities still exist (AFAIK right now the reasons we live in them have to do
>with our present-day economy and modes of production)?
>
one of the most important functions of cities is giving new ideas
a chance to rub up against each other.
To my knowledge, there's never been a city that was interesting all over
--it's always one little district. (I'd like to hear about any exceptions,
including cities with two or three interesting districts.)
Let's suppose that nanotech simplifies production to the point that
if you have the design, producing the thing (or at least individual/
family-sized things) is trivial.
Would there still be places where there's a concentration of people
who'll be audiences for new designs? The idea isn't obviously crazy,
though I don't know whether such concentrations are somehow dependent
on the larger, less neophilic [1] population of a standard city.
I *think* there are enough advantages to such a concentration being
mostly composed of people who live near each other that some would be
towns or city districts rather than having all of them be annual
extravaganzas, though I have no doubt that there'd be food, theatre,
and music festivals.
On the other hand, we aren't necessarily just talking about the
absolute liveliest parts of cities, but also the pretty good areas
with a substantial selection of restaurants, stores, entertainment,
and libraries. The libraries can be duplicated with electronics
and nanotech--you'll be able to get them in any small town or
isolated private home. The stores, restaurants, and live entertainment
involve interaction with people. (I'm talking about the sort of
store or restaurant where the owner and/or staff and/or other
customers is part of the fun.)
Having stores and restaurants like that might require neighborhoods.
Live entertainment needs live audiences, and unless the vr is superb
it might take substantial populations so that enough people will keep
showing to make it possible to have a lively interactive culture.
If the vr is so good that people don't care whether anyone is present
in the flesh, there will still be "neighborhoods", but they'll be
like virtual neighborhoods on-line, not geographical concentrations.
[1] neophilic: having a preference for new things--I first saw the
word in _Illuminatus!_. It's parallelled by neophobic.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>IMHO there _is_ a limit to personal consumption, one could even say that the
>one chair at time and there is definite limit to the amount of Caviar you
>can stuff down your gullet.
>
more interestingly, imho) a limit to how much quality you can notice.
And if there's a labor shortage, there's a limit to how much is
worth the trouble to maintain as a status symbol.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>> How many computers can you own now? How many could you own in 1975?
>
>troublesome...
You use the spares for artificial life experiments.
-
Nancy Lebovitz
Stoneface <mj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 1999 00:38:03 GMT, fos...@aol.com (Fosfato)
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, YOU don't have to do anything. Just tell your Nanos to build you a
>>couple of automated energy collectors, and woosh, of they go to get energy from
>>the sun, or take some matter from Jupitor and return while you're sipping pina
>>coladas.
>
>Your assuming that your nanos have access to some kind of
>database with all the information needed, and that this info
>will be free for the taking. With material things nearly
>valueless I would think Intellectual Property would jealousy
>guarded.
It's possible that status will be based on fame--copying the
information would free and encouraged, but stealing the credit
for it would be punished.
Nancy Lebovitz
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.99083...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>
> pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au "Paul Andinach" writes:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Martin Bonham wrote:
>>
>> > Just to add my 2c worth, Lois is of course a resident of the USA
>> > (IIRC she was also born and raised there).
>> >
>> > McMaster is her fathers surname - her maiden name.
>> > (The engineers in the audience may have read her father's famous book
>> > The "Nondestructive testing handbook, McMaster, Robert Charles, 1913-
>> > ed.)
>> >
>> > She gained the "Bujold" from her ex-husband.
>>
>> So should her books be filed under "M" or "B"?
>
>B. I explained this to one local bookshop, who were embarrassingly pleased
>to know.
>
customers where Bujold's books had been moved to.
Nancy Lebovitz
Stephen Taylor <st...@afs.net.au> wrote:
>Fosfato wrote:
>
>> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems for the
>> future?
>>
>> I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>> anything and everything?
>
>_A for Anything_ by (??) Damon Knight has the world transformed by magic
>duplicating machines (close enough to magic nanotech in economic
>effect).
>
>Pretty quickly some people realise that the only thing left of value is
>service, and in the turmoil, institute a slave society.
>
>Dark, but cute.
>
promoted by prosperity.
John Hughes
> To my knowledge, there's never been a city that was interesting all over
> --it's always one little district. (I'd like to hear about any exceptions,
> including cities with two or three interesting districts.)
London & Paris both have multiple "interesting districts". London
more than Paris.
--
John Hughes <jo...@Calva.COM>,
Atlantic Technologies Inc. Tel: +33-1-4313-3131
66 rue du Moulin de la Pointe, Fax: +33-1-4313-3139
75013 PARIS.
t...@rak061.oulu.fi
> Txr said:
>
> >No. There will be development. It's just that it's getting qualitative rather
> >than quantitative which is the point.
>
> We're standing on the threshhold of immense increases both in available power
> (fusion and space-based SPS) and power demands (interplanetary spaceflight, to
> take one obvious energy-hog). We have not yet gotten anywhere near developing
> all the technological possibilites made possible by the physics we know, and
> are pretty sure that there's considerable amounts of physics we don't yet know.
Perhaps you can explain the utility of having gigawatt-scale fusion reactor just to
power up your home?
> To claim that we won't build stuff much bigger or more powerful, or be
> significantly wealthier, than we are today, is pretty funny. You're kind of
> like that US Patent Office chief who around 1890 or so declared that the office
> should be shut down because "we've invented everything".
We can build bigger and more powerful. We have built bigger and more powerful
for our entire history. It's just that humans haven't gotten bigger or more
powerful...
> >No. I just believe that one person can do only so much in 24 hours of day by
> himself.
> >_That_ is the limiting factor I'm talking about.
>
> (1) Even given that limiting factor, what he does can require more and more
> expensive toys. It has so far.
Ever heard of law of diminishing returns? What's the use of 20-mile starship when
1-mile one will perform equally. (Perhaps even faster than that big barge...)
> (2) That limiting factor recedes when technological improvement also improves
> the human mind itself.
Indeed. People could even realize that there's more to life than just accumulation of
property you can't use anyway.
I do recommend that book I mentioned earlier. Fred Pohl expressed it awfully well...
Jerry Friedman
das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> writes
> : Here's a problem that I don't think nano's will solve--what if a lot
> : of people want nice roomy living spaces in the most interesting
(that
> : is to say, fairly crowded) parts of cities?
>
> Reduce the people!
ObSF: "Get 'em Out by Friday", by Genesis, from the album _Foxtrot_
"18/9/2012 T.V. FLASH ON ALL DIAL-A-PROGRAM SERVICES
This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
'It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid
height.'
EXTRACT FROM CONVERSATION OF JOE ORDINARY IN LOCAL PUBORAMA
'I hear the directors of Genetic Control
have been buying all the properties that have recently been sold,
taking risks oh so bold.
It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright),
Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow,
in the interest of humanity, they've been told they must go,
told they must go-go-go-go.'"
> HHOK.
WTF?
HAC [little picture of a saguaro]
--
Jerry Friedman
jfrE...@nnm.cc.nm.us
i before e
and all the disclaimers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jerry Friedman
fos...@aol.com (Fosfato) wrote:
> Any good stories out their feature really different economic systems
for the
> future?
>
> I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just
make
> anything and everything?
As this seems to be my day for copyright violation, here's one of James
Agee's "Epigrams for the Economy of Abundance" (possibly not remembered
perfectly):
Temperance
Mark well the poor in this late hour,
Before the wonder stop,
Who march among the thundershower
And never touch a drop.
Cynicism aside, Ursula Le Guin is interested in non-capitalist
economies, not necessarily as a response to omnipotent technology. Her
three tries at anarchism are _The Left Hand of Darkness_, _The Eye of
the Heron_, and that flawed masterpiece, _Always Coming Home_. See also
_Four Ways to Forgiveness_ and the recent one about transilience.
There's also Kim Stanley Robinson, with _Pacific Edge_ and the Mars
trilogy.
Jerry Friedman
fos...@aol.com (Fosfato) wrote:
> >From: das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
>
> >To an economist, "scarce" means not so abundant that you can have it
> >for free for the asking.
>
> But see, I think in an advanced enough future it would be free. Just
have
> you're nanos convert some mass with their handy dandy Mr Fusion.
Mr. Fusion is not nanotechnology but oneirotechnology, a word I may have
just made up that means "technology that exists only in dreams". No one
has made fusion power work on any scale smaller than a star. It may not
be possible no matter what you have fabricating the components. The
radioactive-waste problem may be insoluble--that is, for all I know
disposing of the waste may take more energy than the reactor gives. If
fusion can work, you may not be able to make reactors so small that
everyone can own one--that is, if 6 billion people each have their own
reactor, they might use up most of the planet. Yes, nanotechnology
might be able to make small parts, but maybe there's no small
magnetic-field configuration that will confine a fusion reaction, and
nanotechnology will never surpass thick lead as a shielding material.
The same might be true of nanotech--if nanotech factories are possible
(which I wonder about), you might not be able to make them so small
and "green" that everyone can have one.
> > Energy is scarce, berathing-air is not (yet).
>
> Actually that's not true. Their are such things as "Oxygen Bars" in
some
> various REALLY bad cities where you pay to breath oxygen.
Also on trains through passes in the Andes, I've heard.
> >but I suspect you have some
> >other idea for extracting energy from seawater. Care to let us in on
> >it?
>
> E=MC^2
>
> Just change the seawater into energy. How exactly one would do this I
will
> leave up to the nanos.
There are good theoretical reasons, namely conservation of lepton and
baryon number, to doubt that total conversion is possible on any useful
scale. (Notice I said "doubt", not "deny".)
If total conversion is possible, there are excellent theoretical reasons
to believe that it's far, far beyond nanotechnology or even
"femtotechnology".
> Heck, if I knew how to do it, I'd be sleeping with models on a big
pile of
> money right now instead of talking on this newsgroup. ;)
As I said, oneirotechnology.
Pete McCutchen
Svedberg) wrote:
>In article <19990828050004...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Jordan S.
>Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) says...
>> Fosfato said:
>>
>> >I mean, hey what good will capitalism be when your nano's can just make
>> >anything and everything?
>
>You mean that capitalism actually has been any good?
Yes, Jes, capitalism has indeed been good. It's much better at
producing goods and services than other available systems.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>
>>As for energy, now come on. Neither matter nor energy can be CREATED in the
>>strict sense. But, I don't see why the nanos couldn't creat some kind of
>>fully atomated energy device that transforms matter into energy, or just a
>giant
>>solar power collector.
>
>Energy is still "scarce" though, economically speaking, because a society
>advanced enough to build femtobots is going to have lots of goods people will
>want which will require a lot of energy to produce and operate.
Even if energy is relatively abundant, by our standards, we still have
to deal with waste heat. I can imagine that there will be a regime of
tradeable emissions permits for Earthbound waste heat, and that will
be the major source of scarcity. Of course, goods that are
manufactured in space (as most goods will be) won't have to pay such
fees, but there will be transportation costs.
As to the original question, I would expect that even with a
replicator/nanoforge/transmuter/duplicator, there will still be
sources of scarcity: raw materials, land, energy, services, and
handmade goods being the biggies.
Consider our current economy: we spend what, 5% of GDP on food? For a
tribe of hunter/gatherers, that number is close to 100%. And yet the
relative abundance of food hasn't destroyed the concept of scarcity;
it's simply shifted scarcity to other domains. In a society where
replicators exist, the "manufacturing sector" as such will no longer
exist. But we'll still need to gather the raw materials to put in the
hopper, design the devices that the nanoforge will make, provide the
energy to run the nanoforges, etc. Not to mention the service
economy. Until we get real AIs, doctors and massage therapists are
still going to be in demand.
>
>Just as, today, we each individually use enough energy to power whole
>pre-industrial artisan's quarters.
>
> >If everyone could have almost anything they wanted for practially nothing,
>>who's gonna work?
>
>They'll find bigger and better things to "want". Everyone today (in the West)
>can "enjoy" a c. 1800 middle-class standard of living without working, yet they
>continue to work. With greater wealth comes greater expectations.
Indeed. And don't forget travel. Once Upon A Time, people vacationed
near their place of residence, if they vacationed at all. Today, it's
not unusual to take a holiday hundreds of miles from home. I expect
that in this superabundant society, we'll still have Disney World and
Universal Studios.
Graydon
[the databases the nanos work from]
> Not necessarily. Copying those databases would be as easy as
> copying computer software today and I'd rather assume that there would
> be public-domain designs for most common equipment available, designed
> in Open-Source process or something equivalent.
>
> GNU Griffin v.2.44pl3 transatmospheric shuttle anyone?
Dear Gods, no.
I'm all for Open Source software, but for something like that I want
someone to have to be responsible for it scattering my ashes over ten
thousand square kilometers.
--
graydon@ |The Human Dress is forged Iron, The Human Form a fiery Forge,
lara. |The Human Face a Furnace seal'd, The Human Heart its
on.ca |hungry Gorge. -- from Wllm. Blake, "A Divine Image", 1794