Re: One NanoDream, Deconstructed

Robin Hanson (
Tue, 1 Oct 96 13:02:08 PDT

"Dr. Rich Artym" writes:
>> If such a device were smaller than a house,
>Size not relevant.

What if the device took the size of a planet?

>> using stuff available from an acre of land,
>... There's nothing that says you can't crawl around
>within the Earth's crust to your heart's content;

That's what I had in mind. Dig below your acre.

>> and if copyright on the design were not strictly enforced,
>It's unenforceable.

I really can't just take your word for these claims.

>> If I've understood this right, I can challenge the conclusion by
>> pointing to all the assumptions that may not hold.
>You haven't, so you can't. (:-)

I have at least indicated the level of detail I expect from a
description of a NanoDream, including assumptions. It really should
be your job to present such description detail, not mine. In
the absense of such presenations, I've tried to guess.

>> sun may dim due to intervening solar collectors, or the O2 and CO2 may be
>> stripped from the atmosphere. An upload or other population explosion
>> may mean that the ratio of population to acres is far less than one.
>There's a causal inconsistency here. In all the scenarios I've read,
>you need nano to give you control over matter before the above situations
>can arise.

Not all nano is equal. Some abilities will come before others.
The nano device I described may not be among the first nano devices.

>If you want an acre, go and get it --- there's lots going spare, and
>if everyone does it (and they will because everyone wants more) then
>counter-measures are unenforceable because, presumably, the will of
>the people is what matters, no? (;-)

Huh? Unlimited acres for all, even when everyone takes as much as
they can get?

>Public-domain [defense] systems ought to be far, far more capable than
>anything that a remnant of government or state can muster.

I mentioned private PPL defense systems.

Robin D. Hanson