This paper is a work in progress. Additions and retractions will be made as new research is conducted.
I. Introduction
Nanotechnology refers to engineering on the scale of one-billionth of a meter (the molecular level). The development of inexpensive commercial nanotechnology would provide numerous benefits:
The focus of this paper is a practical design for a device known as a replicator, also known as a fabricator. "Replicator" in this instance refers to Star Trek-style replicator applicances rather than the Drexler-style assembler bots, referred to in this paper as "nanobots" for lack of a better term. I will focus on the engineering side of the matter and also outline some of the probable economic effects of such a device.
As with any speculation, certain assumptions are made. The first assumption is that the only readily available nanotech application is the replicator. Otherwise, the scenario changes drastically. Secondly, I assume no physical or mental restriction exists which bars the proliferation of the replicators, such as government or religious objection or some unknown physical limitation of replication. Thirdly, and most importantly, I assume the existence of stored molecular patterns, the blueprints for objects, ready to be called upon by the replicator. These patterns may be created using variants of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Less desirably, patterns may also be created by simple estimation of molecular positions.
II. Possible replicator models
The technology now exists to directly manipulate molecules. However, the use of such technology is currently limited. There aren’t many endeavors that justify the cost of molecular manipulation. A scanning tunneling microscope is typically used to perform direct manipulation of molecules. However, such a device has a prohibitive cost and requires painstaking user direction. To reproduce a simple object would take far too long.
A nanotech-based replicator changes that scenario. Quite simply, a replicator makes a copy of an object using principles similar to scanning tunneling manipulation. How does this high-tech copying machine function? Two methods could be used.
In the first method, the controlling computer loads a molecular pattern file. Molecular positioners, reading from the pattern file, then move molecules to the correct location, slowly piecing together an object. I call this “brute force replication” (BFR). The positioners could use various techniques, such as laser arrays or acoustics, to move the molecules. Such a system, if commercialized, would likely resemble a microwave oven or a dishwasher in shape.
The second method, which is widely trumpeted among nanotech experts, is the use of nano-scale construction robots. The “nanobots” are programmed to use nearby raw materials to construct objects. After the program has been executed, the nanobots shut down. A containment field would prevent stray breezes from dispersing the inactive nanobots. This device model is the much-anticipated "molecular factory."
Although I feel nanobot swarms would provide more flexibility than my preceding BFR device, the engineering challenge would be astronomical. How are the nanobots powered? How are they programmed? How do you communicate with them? Is a single swarm “universally functional” or can it perform only one simple task, such as converting apples to pears?
From an engineering perspective, the BFR model appears to be the most likely candidate for the first replicator. In designing a BFR device, the question asked by the engineer will be, “How do I push this molecule to this location?” Answer that question and half the battle is over. I consider nanobots to be second or third generation nanotechnology, coming several years after BFR. The engineering gap between BFR and nanobots is like the difference between an abacus and a personal computer. Therefore, I will focus on the BFR model.
In the BFR scenario, a supply of various molecules would need to be stored by the machine. The replicator would simply draw upon its store of molecules, placing a water molecule here or a salt molecule there, for example. Imagine a soda fountain with its tanks of various flavors of syrup. The molecular storage device could use such a model. The molecules could be transported from the storage tanks to the replication chamber using electrical currents.
For most replicated objects, only a few widely-used chemicals would be required, such as water, hydrogen or carbon.
III. Environmental interference
Replication will probably occur in closed systems filled with inert gases such as helium and neon. These elements do not normally bond to other elements. Therefore, they will not interfere with replication, providing a distinct advantage over open-air systems. An open-air system would greatly increase the rate of environmental-induced replication failure. Oxidation would easily disrupt replication, and something as simple as a stray breeze would disperse the already-placed molecules.
If a laser array is used to place molecules, a dust-free atmosphere will be required within the chamber to avoid scattering the beam. In any model, the inert gas will need to be recycled and filtered to remove any impurities such as dust or leftover molecules.
Ambient sound and light may also interfere with replication, although this would be remedied by sealing the replication chamber before the process begins. This would entail a soundproof and lightproof design.
Temperature controls must be integrated into the system as well. Heat will interfere with precise molecular placement. Ideally, the temperature inside the replication chamber would be absolute zero. However, commercial systems will likely operate at well above optimal temperature. Thus, some degree of variance will remain in the replicated object, although it is doubtful that it will drastically alter the object. A quality-control mechanism should be implemented to insure an acceptable level of deviation from the molecular pattern.
IV. Replicator proliferation
The replicator allows near-exact synthesis of materials that would be impossible to duplicate otherwise. As long as an item has a stored pattern, it can be replicated. The replicator could also be used to make copies of itself.
Obviously, a device that duplicates goods would be in astronomical demand. Replicators would be replicated to fill the demand. Again, our assumption of no government interference comes into play. The skeptic would interject,"Why assume replicators would be replicated? Wouldn't it be in the creator's interest to restrict ownership?" Initially, the owner would benefit from replicator scarcity. He could simply hoard the technology for himself or sell the technology for exorbitant amounts. We also must assume, however, that some people would be willing to steal the technology for their own use or to reverse engineer the device for resale. Some would even be willing to kill the original owner if he stood in the way. Thus, it would be in the best interest of the owner to allow proliferation of the device.
The skeptic would also ask how can the replicator duplicate itself? Logically, the device couldn't fit inside itself. This is remedied by replicating the device in pieces that will be connected together to form the complete replicator.
What happens when people can create goods on demand? Your replicator creates food as you need it. Sales of groceries will plummet. Gasoline prices plummet as gas, a simple hydrocarbon, is easily replicated. Numerous consumer goods are replicated at home instead of purchased at retailers. Stores go out of business. Wholesalers go bankrupt. Manufacturers fold.
The mass advent of the replicator will make currency instantly worthless. The perfect counterfeiter, a replicator makes anyone a millionaire on demand. Almost no distinction would exist between government-printed currency and replicated currency. This is the ultimate example of inflation – a personal mint located conveniently in the home. Just log on to KaZaa and download the pattern for a one-hundred dollar bill and make sure you have plenty of stored molecules.
V. Rise of the Molecular Economy
Gold and silver may be used as currency initially, although their relative scarcity makes them unavailable to most people. Precious metals would initially increase in price, as gold and silver would be impossible to replicate -- elements are non-replicable (see Section VI for an explanation). However, the lack of buyers and sellers would drive down the value. Trading gold for a now-worthless currency is pointless.
Service-oriented businesses may survive the initial economic shockwave, although the survival period depends upon the supply side. For example, patients will still need doctors. The question is, will doctors still need patients? Why does the doctor need a patient’s patronage when money is worthless and bartering for goods is pointless? Barring coercion or guilt, why would a physician provide services to a patient?
The patient needs the doctor’s professional service. For the sake of example, he needs to have a broken arm set properly. The patient realizes his money is worthless. He also realizes bartering goods is worthless as well. What now?
Let’s say the patient is also a house painter. He offers to paint the doctor’s house in exchange for medical services. Both men agree to the offer and both mutually benefit from the transaction. Marketable skills were used as the store of value, replacing currency. This will be the most basic form of transaction — service bartering.
Specialized skills such as medical knowledge, infrastructure maintenance and computer wizardry will be valued. Sex will also be used as a tradable skill, as the demand for sex always exceeds the supply.
VI. Business Opportunities
Several new industries may arise within this nanotech-based economy.
A. Molecule distributors
Every replicator will need a supply of molecular building blocks. Molecule distributors will provide “NanoRefills” to an insatiable nano-crazed public. Some will ask why users can’t simply replicate these molecules. Although they could be replicated, the replicator would deplete the same amount from its reserves, thus breaking even. This industry would be destroyed by the creation of a “deconstructor”, that is, a device that breaks down an object into molecular raw material. Why trade for molecules when you can get them for free?
B. Inert gas distributors
The inert gases used in the replicators are an unreplicable raw material. These gasses are elements and cannot be replicated (see above for reason). Thus, you could duplicate the replicator but not the noble gases within it. Neon is a common noble gas that is easily transported and would likely be used in early BFR systems. Even with airtight seals, the neon would leak out over time and would need to be replaced, much like air conditioner coolant must be replaced periodically. Your local neon retailer would be glad to handle this duty.
C. Replicator research and development
Improvements will still need to be made in the technology, so research will continue. Different industries will require varied replicator platforms. The average household would be content with a dishwasher-size unit. An auto manufacturer using BFR for total production would need a much larger replication chamber. Researchers would seek ways to reduce the amount of heat produced during replication, thus reducing the error rate.
D. Pattern creators
Someone must create the molecular pattern files. Patterns will be judged based upon their quality and accuracy. Higher quality patterns will be in demand, much like digital music is considered more desirable than music recorded on analog media. Companies will race to create accurate pattern scanners based upon MRI technologies. Freelance pattern designers will create new objects never before seen. Pattern designers may set up pay-for-access websites allowing users to download their latest designs.
VII. Conclusions
The widespread distribution of replicators will eliminate material scarcity as we know it, giving most material objects a near-zero cost. However, basic raw materials will still need to be processed and will be the only goods with value. Thus, molecules and services will be considered currency.
The worldwide death rate will plummet as food and medicine becomes available on demand.
The entertainment industry will boom. With massive unemployment and most of their material needs filled, people will devote most of their time to leisurely activities. Recreational drug use will increase to levels never before seen, due to increased leisure time and easy replication of drugs.
Prostitution will dramatically increase. Sex will be a tradable skill, giving prostitutes an highly marketable skill. They will also benefit from the increase in leisurely pursuits.
I have largely ignored the psychological shock of such a paradigm shift. Such a scenario is difficult enough to predict without factoring in any societal upheaval. Although I have assumed no government or religous interference, most likely government would devote massive resources to regulating or even banning replicators.
Michael Haislip is the President of the Transhuman Institute.
© Copyright 2003 Transhuman Institute Singularity Action Group website frames version.