Message 02118 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01904 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Free Software, Free Physical Goods, Nanotechnology, and Dependency



Hi Robin and all!

3 weeks (21 days) ago Robin Green wrote:
OK, so what is going to be the next big development that gets us closer to
a society based on the principles of Free Software? Maybe some of you have
not even asked that question. Maybe you think it is a wrong question - why
should there be any such big development, or what makes anyone think they
can predict it?

I think I can predict it. I think the answer is molecular nanotechnology,
also known more descriptively as molecular manufacturing. I don't know
if this has been discussed on the list yet already.

I think it has been mentioned here and there but I can't remember a
in-depth discussion of this issue. Thanks for bringing it up - sounds
interesting :-) .

As this is a list inspired by technology,

Well, not only by technology - then we would discuss details of the
Linux kernel - but also and may be foremost by the social aspects. In
particular how labor / work / useful human activity is / can be
organized. Your points are indeed relevant for this.

i.e. free software, I would hope
that there would be some on this list who would have an open mind at least
towards molecular nanotechnology, as fantastic as it may sound.

My cent below :-) .

Nanotechnology is manipulating matter at the nanometer scale - the scale
of individual atoms and molecules. Ultimately having precise control over
the structure of matter at that level.

On an abstract level I'd characterize it as a very powerful
technology. This is similar to computer technology which is also very
powerful in the realm of information.

One of the most striking features of computer technology to me is that
it is universal regarding (digital) information. I don't know whether
nanotechnology is as universal for matter as computer technology is
for information but probably that is not the most important question
here.

[...]
What does all this mean?

It all means decentralisation of production.

Yes. Let's try to understand this more precisely. You already gave
interesting hints.

This is because you can't make a TV in your little hamlet. Things like the production
of TVs require centralisation, they require markets, they favour large corporations.

Indeed. One feature of nanotechnology is that it is tiny. You do not
need a big building or machines at least to apply nanotechnology. So I
could give you a handful of nanorobots you can apply at your home.
Indeed this resolves the (old socialist) problem of big means of
production just like the PC and the Internet does it for information:
These means of production can be set up reasonably in every household.
Just as you can buy a PC today to use it as a means of production for
your own things you may then walk into a shop and buy some flasks of
assorted nanorobots and use them at home for whatever you like.

This will be really interesting if you have Free KnowHow to combine
these assorted nanorobots. I.e. a recipe on the Internet telling how
you combine nanorobot ES-1935 with nanorobot RU-1917 and some of
MX-1905 to create a revolutionary design of a tea cup. Yes, this is
something we discussed to some detail for Fabbers but it applies to
nanotechnology as well.

If there is self-replication available or at least the technology is
able to replicate itself - i.e. having nanorobots which can produce
other nanorobots without the ability to self-replicate - then you
virtually removed scarcity in this area. If I am able to replicate the
nanorobots I bought in a flask then I can easily help my neighbors (TM
Richard Stallman ;-) ) by producing a flask of nanorobots for them.
This is very similar to the concept of digital copy which is one of
the foundations of the success of Free Software.

Obviously, if this technology ever proves to be realised, I expect a stupendous battle.
Capitalists, as a class, are not going to let go of their "He who dies with the most
toys wins" mentality lightly, nor are they going to let go of their control lightly.
(And unfortunately nanotech also carries with it great new military and terroristic threats.
Untraceable assassination devices. New microscopic torture devices. Oh dear.
Not pleasant thoughts.)

I think similar concerns as with gene technology apply here -
especially if you have self-replication features. Well, probably this
is the curse of all these powerful technologies which are are somewhat
independent of human intervention. Computer viruses are just an
already existing example of that.

But the very fact that molecular manufacturing could give us by far the closest
technological solution to escape capitalism - or to make capitalism destroy itself
- I think makes it worth fighting for.

You won't stop it anyway.

But, yes, I think nanotechnology could be similar or even superior to
what we are discussing in this project under the term fabber for quite
some time now.

Some have objected that you can't produce things like TVs and computers without intellectual
property, which is generally expensive. But we already know the solution to that: open
source and open blueprints for hardware. And so that is why I think nanotech _itself_
will be kept out of people's hands by legal means. I don't think it is even possible,
even imaginable, to criminalise Linux, used on a huge proportion of the Internet, even today,
much less in 20 years time. So you can't criminalise open source, as some have suggested.
That shouldn't be discussed any further - it's a completely nonsensical idea, it's like
criminalising gift-giving. You have to instead partially criminalise nanotech if you want
to stop this revolution in production - but how can you do that, because the capitalist class
will be torn between wanting to be more efficient, and wanting to fund startups who can make
millions FROM being more efficient by using nanotech, and not wanting to give the technology
away!

So actually, even though I think the capitalists will try to fight nanotech, they will fight
against themselves. And will lose. The final triumph of the "efficient" market system -
to compete itself virtually out of existence.

I agree. This is very similar to how e.g. IBM adopts Free Software.


						Mit Freien Grüßen

						Stefan

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01904 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
Message 02118 [Homepage] [Navigation]