Robust Manufacturing Technology

Paul S commented on my last post: "...if regulation is necessary it will have to be applied before any robust [molecular manufacturing] technology is released to the public."

I agree with this - depending on just what is meant by "robust."

What makes a technology robust? Or, what would make a molecular manufacturing technology difficult to un-release to the public?

Consider first that molecular manufacturing development, along with other technologies, will not be standing still. A ten-year-old nanofactory would be more out of date than a ten-year-old computer. So if a branch of technology is left to stagnate for ten years, then it will effectively be un-released. It will still be able to do what it used to, but relative to the powers of modern technology, its products would be relatively unimportant. And if regulation is needed, ten years of progress in military and law enforcement technologies (including data mining) might make it difficult to use ten-year-old technologies without being spotted.

On the other hand, this analysis assumes that the governmental version of molecular manufacturing would continue developing rapidly. This is not necessarily a safe assumption. Without lots of minds working on it with the stimulus of economic competition, a technology could easily stagnate. So ten-year-old civilian tech vs. ten years of governmental progress might be a pretty even match. Just look at the U. S. space program.

The second question is whether a particular incarnation of technology is usable and useful. For commercial applications, this means it has to be reliable, predictable, and not too innovative. As a home appliance, it has to be thoroughly simple to use, safe and perceived as safe, and make finished products. For hobbyists, it has to be fairly inexpensive to work on. It's far from obvious that an embryonic molecular manufacturing technology would be adopted by any of these groups in a way that led to its rapid further development.

So if early molecular manufacturing was released to the public, it's not at all certain that this would lead to Pandora's box being opened a decade in the future. This is good news, because in a sense, early molecular manufacturing has already been released.

Chris Phoenix

Comments

[the Oakster1]

I don't see how regulation of nanotechnologies is an issue; at least, for most people, the regulation of nanomanufacturing is 'common sense.' This almost sounds like Bill Joy . . .paraphrasing(oh, scientists, they never think twice about the implications of their research).

Seems to me, the real issue is the worry of 'who' uses nanomanufacturing. The real issue is making a group of people that are 'good.' This doesn't seem to be something CRN and others want to really say.

And when the issue is who do we want in office regulating . . . and having a global, all under one roof earth at least . . . well, that state of affairs should prove really interesting! Talk about capital hill stalemate with every interest group pushing and pulling every which way; truth will definitelly be compromised; justice? what's that! People will learn to hate . . . and hate some more(as, as far as I can tell, I've had to do in my life; nobody communicates; i can only assume that, ahm, society can't survive if it had to punish this sick evil society).

[todd]

“Regulation of nanotechnologies”? Ok are we all on the same page do we agree everyone should have access to this technology. One thing I was thinking the other day if we build large production system not table top systems and requests are made by the internet, cell phones, or regional office for “useful products “by individuals. The products are then delivered to the user, would this give us all some control over the use of the technology? With that said a 40 room home 15 cars, plains, boats, and RV should cover most of the needs of any one user. The stuff is the easy part of the story, were to put everyone is a hard one, and what everyone eats, as we roll out the teck is the other large problem I see.

The really bad wars – revolutions have been caused by reassigning land to others with that said I believe it is unfair for one user to have 100 + miles of land as some have now. Some debate will need to happen before we split up the land to all the users. One thing there is lots of land under the ocean and there is room in the ocean and lots of room over the ocean.