New Economics For Advanced Future

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Fosfato

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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?

Jordan S. Bassior

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
Fosfato said:

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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?

Jesper Svedberg

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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?

>
> 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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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.
--
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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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

Jordan S. Bassior

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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).

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
Jesper Svedberg said:

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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)

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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.
--
There is nothing new under the sun, but there are a lot of old things we
don't know.---Ambrose Bierce

Rick

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
On 28 Aug 1999 09:19:43 GMT, fos...@aol.com (Fosfato) wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
On or about Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:14:00 -0400, nanorc wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> Here's what I assume would be at least somewhat scarce even if there's
> magic nanotech:
>
> Trustworthy people (thank you, Neal Stephenson, for pointing that out--
> 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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
Fosfato said:

>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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
Bitstring <37C7C401...@knutsen.dk> from the wonderful Peter
Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> asserted

>
>
>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).

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to

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

unread,
Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
On 28 Aug 1999 08:35:44 GMT, 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?

"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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)

>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> writes
: .... 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Fosfato <fos...@aol.com> writes
: 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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?

--

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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?

--

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <7qa2ka$d...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
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?
>
>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.
>
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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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!

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <7qa26p$3...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Jonathan Hendry <j_he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7qa1oi$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?
>
>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.
>
You'd gain some space--you might five times the available volume
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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Nancy Lebovitz (na...@unix3.netaxs.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
: From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
: >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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
>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.

> 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Anton Sherwood <das...@netcom.com> writes:
: 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
From: jw...@world.std.com (jeff wiel)

> Is there anything nano can't do?

They can't seem to help Mike, Crow & Tom escape.

Randolph Fritz

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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.*

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <slrn7sh5d4....@open.thedoor.nom>,

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <8E30E5C1...@news.ultranet.com>,
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.
>
>It could be possible, if the building materials are strong enough. For
>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
On 29 Aug 1999 02:45:13 GMT, Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Fosfato said:

>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Anton Sherwood said:

>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
From: jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)

>"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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Fosfato said:

>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Fosfato said:

(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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
>From: jsba...@aol.com (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.

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <7qa17h$e...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com>
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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
Jo Walton replied to an earlier comment from Anton Sherwood.

> > 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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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.

>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <19990829002639...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <19990829001726...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,

Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anton Sherwood said:
>
>>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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <19990828051943...@ng-bh1.aol.com>, fos...@aol.com
(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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <19990828043544...@ng-bh1.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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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. :)


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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
On 28 Aug 1999 21:21:52 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December
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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <7qavhm$c...@netaxs.com>,

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.
>
>>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_...

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <19990829082316...@ngol02.aol.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
In article <37C7EEB5...@mindspring.com>, Rick
<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

unread,
Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99
to
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
really
- no limit to what they c