Matter replicators, obsolete jobs, and economic inertia

[Erik Mesoy]

As the technological singularity approaches, I expect a matter replicator, fabricator or similar technology to come into existence. It may be based on nanotechnology, and will certainly require ludicrous amounts of energy to shove atoms and molecules around. However, I also expect technology for acquiring or producing said amount of energy to come into existence, whether based on fusion, effective capture of solar energy, or some other effective power source. We will assume a energy source in the following, as this discussion is not meant to center on possible energy sources. (Anyone who wants to do so may start another thread. If no such energy source develops, the result is little more than increased revenue for power companies as payments are made to them instead of manufacturing companies, thus mooting the question.)

This may seriously damage the economy. The ability to turn chunks of rock into a house or car for the cost of energy and time, without human work, may put construction workers and car manufacturers out of a job. Farms may no longer be required as anything may be turned into food. At best, they are likely to produce connoiseur (sp?) or nostalgia food. According to this article, the US economy includes the following employments "manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts (23.7%), farming, forestry, and fishing (2.5%)" and has as its main industries "petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining, defense".

The question is then: Will we be better or worse off with widely available replicator technology/access?

Replicator supporters may make the argument that this is similar to abandoning the gold standard and that we'll be better off with less total work to be done. The counterarguments may include the argument that work is not fungible and will not be redistributed effectively, and the reduction in total work may lead to deflation, not to mention that it may be possible to replicate currency. This might be resolved by digitizing currency, and there are a host of other arguments to discuss, such as the [wiki]broken window fallacy[/wiki] in reverse.

I gave my opinion in this thread:

Personally, I'm in agreement with Arthur C Clarke. I don't remember the exact quote, but he opined that we should strive for a zero-hour workweek. This requires the destruction of the current economic system.

... along with robots. Oooooooh robots. Yay!

(There's also the general question of whether technological advancement should not exceed a certain adoption pace in order to prevent damage to the economy caused by the obsoletion of old technology that the economy is dependent on.)

 

[LightFang]

Are you a model Singularitarian?

How about, instead of a fabricator, one of those teleportation devices? Would that be more feasible?

I remember back in eighth grade my social science teacher predicted a return to a more isolated environment as things such as teleporters eliminated the need to drive around and do stuff.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I voted negative, because I don't like the idea of being able to obtain anything you want. If you don't have to work for it, it loses much of its intrinsic value. The laws of supply and demand would collapse overnight, and our economy would disintegrate into chaos.

Perhaps industrial grade replicators for construction purposes would be okay, but I would be totally against replicators for use by the individual for consumer goods and so forth.

 

[Eli]

The laws of supply and demand would collapse overnight, and our economy would disintegrate into chaos.

So? The purpose of our economy is to efficiently supply us with commodities*. When these commodities can be produced by anyone at practically 0 cost, why would we need the economy for?

* - Entertainment and knowledge based jobs will remain of course.

 

[Kal'thzar]

your 'just' cutting a large middle man out, going straigh from energy produced to desired output.

 

[Mulholland]

Wars would break out over such an invention. Government, industry and consumers would covet it and take it by force. A country as the sole proprietor of this machine would indeed become incredibly wealthy but other countries would languish and fail as market prices collapsed.

 

[Kal'thzar]

the nation state as a stable political entity would most likly fail yes.

 

[Brighteye]

It's a good thing. I'm not sure that we could ever use it on a large enough scale to be dangerous.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This may seriously damage the economy. The ability to turn chunks of rock into a house or car for the cost of energy and time, without human work, may put construction workers and car manufacturers out of a job. Farms may no longer be required as anything may be turned into food. At best, they are likely to produce connoiseur (sp?) or nostalgia food. According to this article, the US economy includes the following employments "manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts (23.7%), farming, forestry, and fishing (2.5%)" and has as its main industries "petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining, defense".

It's not going to destroy the economy. It's going to change the economy just like industrialization transformed us from an agricultural economy. Instead of relying on industry to produce the vast majority of tradeable products, we'll rely on nanofabricators. Yes, this will mean that many people in the industrial sector will lose their jobs, but that doesn't mean that there will no work left. People will adapt to the changing economy by seeking and training for jobs in nanofabrication, just like people left the farm to go work in the factories during the 19th century.

Btw, you exaggerate. You cannot turn a rock into a car, even with nanofabrication because that violates the law of conservation of mass.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Btw, you exaggerate. You cannot turn a rock into a car, even with nanofabrication because that violates the law of conservation of mass.

Hence chunks of rock.

 

[warpus]

Such a technology will not emerge overnight (if at all).

Human civilization would have plenty of time to adapt. A communist-style society forseen by Star Trek might come into existence.. or we might see something else entirely, who knows.

 

[Kennigit]

I don't think it'll ever happen, but if it did it would certainly have a negative effect. Money would get useless, people have basically whatever they want, etc. If this ever came about it would have to be confined, much like the Twilight Zone episode.

Soylent green is much more likely.

 

[Kozmos]

Such a technology will not emerge overnight (if at all).

Human civilization would have plenty of time to adapt. A communist-style society forseen by Star Trek might come into existence.. or we might see something else entirely, who knows.

It will come, maybe even by 2028.

 

[aneeshm]

The principles which underlie my support for Free Software, and for the free market, also apply here.

What we are doing is basically turning everything into software - things which can be trivially and infinitely replicated with a negligible cost.

This also happens to be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

The benefits outweigh the costs by such ridiculous orders of magnitude that it would be grave folly to oppose this.

 

[potatokiosk]

I think it would be great. Since over 25% of jobs would no longer be needed we could cut work weeks by 25% to 30 hours. It would cause temporary unemployment, like the industrial revolution, but in the long run everyone would benefit.

 

[nivi]

Communism? Utopia? Maybe.



Or maybe someone will decide to creat a nuke that will destroy us all

 

[Brighteye]

Btw, you exaggerate. You cannot turn a rock into a car, even with nanofabrication because that violates the law of conservation of mass.

With enough energy, why not? Why bother with a rock, in fact? Just make a car.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

With enough energy, why not? Why bother with a rock, in fact? Just make a car.

You mean, directly creating matter? Well, the side effect of that is antimatter. Which we can turn back into energy by vaporizing it against matter. At which point it's easier to shuffle existing particles around anyway.

 

[Little Raven]

You mean, directly creating matter? Well, the side effect of that is antimatter.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If and when our technology ever gets advanced enough that we're comfortable with the energy expense of directly creating matter, I'm quite sure we'll be able to safely handle anti-matter. And the stuff would no doubt be quite useful in the right circumstances.

 

[Japanrocks12]

It would sure as hell make our lives easier. Of course, it would revolutionize anything. Being able to produce all you want (though surely there has to be some sort of tangible limit..?) will eliminate the need for any sort of economy, and if its used to mass produce tools of war, we could see new sorts of warfare emerge from it too. However, since warfare is a constant and the economy will be gone, I see this as a positive effect.