Robin Hanson wrote:
>Jeff Davis wrote:
>>Conventional market economics, and the related cost factors,
>>go the way of the buggy whip when automation reaches the
>>level of exponential machine self-replication.
>> Cost factors always originate in the labor component of
>>a product or service, which, in the case of a self-replicating
>>machine system, is confined to the design and construction
>>of the "seed". The exponential growth of the system
>>distributes that initial cost over the entire system. ...
>>a macro-sized (in contrast to nano) machine self-replicating
>>manufacturing system makes anything that current technology
>>can make, in quantities that saturate demand, and at a "cost"
>>which, shrinking to insignificance, frankly, challanges the
>>definition of the term.
>> So single crystal vs. amorphous is a non-issue.
>
>Conventional economic *theory* seems more than adequate to
>analyse these sort of situations. Thus one should be able
>to understand what does or does not radically change "market
>economics" by more carefully applying that theory to the
>novel assumptions you are interested in. I challenge those
>who believe in such radical change to do this.
>
>Some comments:
>1) It is not clear that demand can ever be "saturated."
>2) Your phrase "cost factors always originate in the labor
> component of a product or service" sounds bogus. The
> cost of land, for example, is very real.
>3) A self-reproducing solar-array builder need not be at
> all close to something that can make anything.
>4) The growth *rate* seems crucial. Something that doubled
> every twenty years seems pretty uninteresting.
I don't care a fig for conventional economic theory. Ever since the first chief imperial economist was called into the emperor's presence, and the emperor, staring out the window said, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the greatest economist of them all?" and the economist, who's mother had raised no idiot children, replied, "Oh, great Ozymandias, King of Kings, thy genius, as in all things, is supreme, rising so far beyond the feeble reckoning of we ordinary men, your humble servants, that it rivals the wisdom of the gods themselves. Thou art the greatest economist the line of man shall ever produce." "Flattery aside, chief economist", replied Ozymandias with an air of cold command, "Does it appear economically viable for me to send my armies forth to destroy all who resist me, and to then subjugate the rest?" "Exalted one", replied the economist, perfectly attuned to his master's unquenchable thirst for power, "my discernment is insignificant compared to yours, yet I am pledged to answer, so I say it is not merely viable, but essential. It is the will of the gods that you shall rule over other men. Rape, pillage, conquer, destroy. Embrace that choice and achieve your destiny, and you will surely earn not only your place in the Hall of Heroes, but your place among the very Gods themselves." "Thank you chief economist," said Ozymandias. "You may go now." As he left the palace to return to his villa, he felt a warm sense of confidence. At least for tonight he would sleep safe and secure in the arms of his latest trophy wife. Sycophancy has been the central feature of economics (and history, and theology--"Render unto Ceaser...") since Ur. That is why Soviet economists were Marxist, why western economists are proponents of whatever flavor of capitalism is currently in favor, why it is called the dismal science, and why it is utterly disreputable. "Garbage in" can make you stupid, or, if you're good at it, rich. Robin, fellow extropian, I trust you will not take any of this personally. Now, as to your comments.
>1) It is not clear that demand can ever be "saturated."
You sit down in an Italian restaurant, a big plate of pasta in front of you. You eat, and eat, and eat, and eat. When you can eat no more, your demand is saturated. Multiply by five billion. Every human on the planet--a finite number--is home, in a very big house, wandering around thinking,"I should close down this wing of the house, I never use it." Demand is saturated. Imelda is sitting in the Ferdinand Marcos Memorial Footware Museum, within whose halls she has assembled, in her size, one pair of every kind of footware ever made. Uh,...ok, bad example.
>2) Your phrase "cost factors always originate in the labor
> component of a product or service" sounds bogus. The
> cost of land, for example, is very real.
A piece of land can be bought or sold. Why? Because men-at-arms protect its property status. Their labor, as well as that of armaments manufacturers, and the governmental infrastructure which codifies and maintains the arrangement, is the labor value in the land. Otherwise it would be free. That is, if unclaimed. If claimed, it would be free to steal. If you had the men-at-arms. Which brings us back to where we started.
As to bogus.
Once upon a time, there was a man who, after having amassed a considerable fortune in the pickle business, set out to build the world's largest pickle. Using his expertise, his financial resources, and a lifetime's accumulation of goodwill, he built a very, very large pickle. How large was it? It was so large, that in order to see all of it, you had to get so far away from it, that you couldn't see any of it. That's bogus.
>3) A self-reproducing solar-array builder need not be at
> all close to something that can make anything.
In my original post, I clearly indicated that the design of novel components for the system, or of products to be made by the system, and the programming with which to implement the manufacture of those components or products, would come from outside, from the system operators. Nevertheless, a self-replicating machine system, by definition, would be able to make every part of itself, and thus would REQUIRE a broad, almost comprehensive set of manufacturing capabilities. This implies, well,...an almost comprehensive set of outputs. But, I have to apologize. I'm have an unfair advantage here. This is all theoretical and speculative, so I have broad lattitude to control the definitions regarding system capability. In the real world, the system would have limitations. Sometimes it would come up short. In those cases, human intervention would be required, ideally, to add the missing capability.
>4) The growth *rate* seems crucial. Something that doubled
> every twenty years seems pretty uninteresting.
The "throughput" issue. Yes. Well, the folks behind the 1980 Nasa Summer Study--Advanced Automation for Space Missions concluded that this was not a problem.
I'm still waiting on my copy of "Expontial Growth in Large Self-Reproducing Machine Systems". Perhaps after I've digested it, I'll have a taste for crow. Hope not.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Ray Charles