Arken

Hi. I don't usually hang out in this forum and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place in which to discuss this, but it seemed the best place to me. It's a scenario that I thought up today and I'd be interested to see what people here thought.

Hypothetical situation- Nanotechnology is developed to the point that there is a 'replication machine' in every home. Literally anything anyone ever needs is created instantly by the machine using everything from garbage to dirt as raw materials as the nanorobots simply sort through the molecules, break them up, and recombine the atoms into new, more usable molecules for the material. The robots can repair and rebuild themselves if they break down.

Now I realize that this is a long way off if it ever even happens at all, but it is something futurists have predicted for a long time.

Given that the above happens-

1) We have de facto communism. Since any physical thing can be created at anyone's whim, there is no longer any such thing as wealth because nothing is worth any more or less than anything else. Therefore, there is a total equal distribution of wealth by eliminating the wealth concept completely.

2) We have anarchy in the sense that without any sort of incentive, I don't believe there will be enough people who will voluntarily take up the often thankless and dangerous job of enforcing laws.

However, 2 could be partially offset by the fact that if everything we want can be provided for us, there would be very little crime (with the exception of things like rape, murders of passion, etc.)

Does this scenario, given the original premise, sound right? Would this lead to total chaos or utopia or something else? I'd love to hear opinions. Thanks.

beastmaster

It's something I've thought about quite often actually -- even though the scenario is still fanciful at best. Yet, it's a fine thought experiment.

The nano you've described would eliminate all comparative advantages that could be realized from trade in goods. In this sense, capitalism will have nothing left to offer in the world of goods, and will be abandoned due to its obsolescence.

But there would remain comparative advantages in trade of services and ideas. So I don't think that nano would obviate the need for all contracts recognized and enforced by law. So I think the principles of freedom of contract characteristic of so-called capitalism and the state will endure.

Arken

But other than the contract makers and holders themselves, who would benefit from upholding such things? Right now, we know that people will benefit with wage pay for doing it.

jpbrooks

I agree that the hypothetical scenario above would, very likely, lead to anarchy. I'm just having trouble seeing how there could be both communism and anarchy at the same time, since communism requires some sort of (central) governmental system. But I think I understand your point.

Under Anarchy, there would be no "crimes" at all. Any act would be "ok" perform because "laws" would be subjectively imposed and enforced.
But are you certain that rape, murders, and similar kinds of acts would be the only ones that are performed? What about things like theft? Stealing "nano" machines from other people, for example, would seem to provide the thief with advantages over others at their expense.

Without a government that can address what we call "crime", chaos seems much more likely than utopia.

(I have to run, but I just could not resist commenting on this one.)

Arken

Sorry. I should have specified that when I said crime in that sense, I meant things which our society now considers to be immoral acts which deserve punishment.

AdamWho

Things are not the only stuff that makes society go. In a futuristic society that you described I would assume that almost all capitalism would be based on services. Services share of the US economy grows bigger every year, it may even dominatethe production of goods.
People who can do things that other people can't or do want to do will always exist. Even in a imaginary Star Trek universe.

xorbie

Well I have not really met too many of replies, so sorry if I repeat anything. However, several things need to be taken into consideration here. Firstly, even if this technology comes about when human society has some minute semblance to modern society (change about 0% I think), the energy cost of doing this would be absurdly high. Not to mention that we would run out of garbage and dirt.

However, I think your fears should be abated. Firstly, if people actually could get whatever they wanted, law enforcement would no longer be needed, as nobody owuld really want to steal anything, and I am sure that security provisions would be enough to prevent murder.

However, I can't garauntee any of this (and neither can anyone else) because this technology is just so far off.

beastmaster

There is nobody "other than" contract makers and holders. Everybody who participates in the economy is a contract maker and holder. Therefore, everybody benefits.

Maybe I don't understand your question.

Arken

Well in our society now, there is someone to go to if one of the two (or more) parties is in breach of contract- i.e. the legal system. Without said legal system, what is to stop someone from just breaking the contract whenever they want.

As far as their still being a service economy... again, what motivation does someone have to perform a service, especially for someone who could not give them a service in return? There are plenty of people who could do things for me that I could do nothing for in exchange and vice-versa... so again, where is the economy there?

mimi

That's why we have currency, Arken