The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Nanotech, the Future, and the Economy
Moridan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Let's assume that in a century or so we manage to build a universal constructor. It takes in base matter and can output an object, in any form, made out of the same base matter. This may or may not be possible, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it happens.
In such a future, food and materials are essentially free.
So in that case, what would the economy be like? What good is money when most everything is free?
What about a "perfect" base matter that contains all of the known elements? Would such a thing serve a similar purpose as today's gold, having both a practical function and serving as the foundation for a credit based economy.
In such a future, food and materials are essentially free.
So in that case, what would the economy be like? What good is money when most everything is free?
What about a "perfect" base matter that contains all of the known elements? Would such a thing serve a similar purpose as today's gold, having both a practical function and serving as the foundation for a credit based economy.
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
Moridan on
0
Posts
Massive amounts of energy. Where is that gonna come from?
wut
I don't... I don't think you understand how nanotech would work.
First law of Thermodynamics dude.
Ignore the issue of energy. Or assume that the constructor can turn an essentially limitless resource into sufficient power.
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
Can we also assume your entire understanding of science comes from science-fiction novels?
Oh god it's another Mad_Morlock.
Welp, that's about the end of the energy I waste responding to this thread.
err... yeah, anyway, there would still be competition in the design sector and in patent law.
I was actually hoping this thread would be about real nano-technology, which is a rather massive field which I try to follow closely.
I'll assume that by "base matter" you mean atoms.
Why would food and materials be free? Even if the energy to run this Star Trek replicator (since that's what you've described) were free, the atoms have to come from somewhere. Somebody would own the land or materials that the atoms came from in the first place, and they'd charge money for it. I suppose the replicators themselves would only cost as much as the materials, since you could just make a new replicator for your friends if they provide you the materials.
No. It would be much more effective to sell different kinds of atoms seperately, so you could buy just the ones you need and only as much as you need. Plus, since atoms would be actually useful, we'd be effectively moving back to a barter system instead of currency. Want to buy something from someone but don't need any of the extra atoms he has? Sucks for you.
A universal constructor is theoretically possible. If you're talking transmuting elements as well, then it's "theoretically possible". As for cold fusion, it's more a case of proving it's even possible nevermind perfecting it.
I get what you're trying to ask, but your ideas on science are definitely in the "infinite monkeys" realm.
That said, I think you'd get far more socialised policies for the simple reason that no-one's going to be worried about paying for it through taxes. I imagine that you're also going to have to invent a lot of automated cleaning and repair systems because there won't be people desperate enough to take on the shitty jobs. Mind you, if you've built a universal constructor and tapped an infinite source of energy, that shouldn't be to much of a problem.
Or carbon/silicon would become the default universal currency.
If it helps you guys get past the inevitable childish sarcasm stage and on to interesting discussion... sure.
EDIT - My thanks to those who actually posted a thought out response.
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
Why carbon/silicon?
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
because they are very very very common and are two of the atoms you would be able to find basically anywhere you deploy your constructors.
But if they are so common, would that not make them less suitable as currency?
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
Not to mention would most likely be useful in a lot of things your constructors make. Carbon is tasty.
I don't think you understand what "currency" means, and why we use banknotes instead of raw materials as currency.
You can find them everywhere, but you also need them for almost everything. Anything organic (like your food) is going to need carbon and semiconductors are basically silicon plus a doping material to alter its properties.
They can both form four bonds so you can make chains of carbon/silicon atoms with other groups sticking out from the sides that determine the type of molecule it is. Also both very useful in nanotechnology.
but the thing is, infinite energy. Efficiency suddenly doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter that the carbon and silicon are sequestered in oxides and complex compounds.
You pretty run out of ground before you run out of carbon or silicon. they'd have less value than they do now, because there form would not matter. They can be expensive now, but with infinite energy and universal constructors, purity doesn't factor in.
elements like gold and shit, would still have some value, because they are not absolutely fucking everywhere.
like, you can't really swing a dead cat without swinging carbon and silicon, hitting carbon and silicon and standing on carbon and silicon. There is also carbon in the air the cat passes through.
opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
- Robert A. Heinlein
And not even good ones?
What the OP is trying to get it at is a post-scarcity economy, which isn't a particularly new idea.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Still infinite energy won't exist since that doesn't exist in the universe but what is more reasonable is that energy wil be way way cheaper and more abundent if people get fusion going.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
of course, the real question is, what do we turn the moon into? Helium 3 and shitloads of solar power(solar cells basically free now), it's just a massive hunk of raw material.
Space Arc to carry a billion people to another planet? Turn it into one of those neat habitat ring thingies, around earth? Whole bunch of small colonies?
1. You don't seem to understand what currency is. It is just a system to simplify trade of goods or services. Instead of having to trade X thing you own for Y thing you need (because the person who owns Y might not conversely need X), you use a common form of barter. Scarcity of money reflects scarcity of goods & services. Thus currencies require regulated scarcity themselves (eg floating exchange rates) to avoid creation of more money than reflects the quantity of goods & services in the economy (eg inflation). There is nothing intrinsic about money which requires it to be scarce.
2. Unless your replicators (cough) also create people, your [extremely hypothetical] world doesn't negate scarcity of skills, labour, services, etc. Thus there would still be a need for trade.
3. As well as the energy point previously mentioned, whether 'base matter' (what?) is abundant or not, unless you know something we don't about physics, it isn't an infinite resource. Therefore it is still scarce, so see point 1.
4. You aren't talking about nanotechnology, you're talking about Star Trek.
5. If you want to consider mad future leaps, consider that compared to a few millenia ago, today food & materials are 'essentially free'. But they aren't.
Go learn some of the basic principles of economics, society and science before you skip straight to wild 'what if' situations.
...and the air the cat passes.
Energy is still a commodity. As would labor. You don't get a real post-scarcity economy until you have AI labor and unlimited energy supply.
If you combine those three, then yes, money would be obsolete. The only thing you'd conceivably spend money on is for goods with sentimental or attached value, like hand-carved items. But for those there'd be little reason to bother with an actual currency system when barter would work just as well. "I'll trade you that painting you worked on for a century for this poem I have composed one line a decade for the last millennium."
As Will Smith said: "Robots building robots? That's just stupid."
If we're talking grey goo, what's to say it isn't smart enough to arrange it's own power supply and adapt to the counter-grey goo?
Or, hell, maybe the two get to talkin', realize they've got lots in common, maybe like the same music, and maybe one of them thinks the way that the other devours a gas giant is kinda intriguing...
Next thing you know, they're having themselves a hybrid super-grey goo baby.
To be fair, the OP's not about science. It's about the economy in this hypothetical situation.
Similarly, his uncodified legal system works if you assume humanity has undergone the extensive changes he posits, but would be disastrous if implemented here and now.