tronvillain

I think the major flaw in that scenario is that it ignores that even universal assemblers require raw materials, and that not just any raw materials will do for most items (you cannot give your universal assemblers a desk and tell them to make a vcr). Given the existence of a "universal assembler" that does not require huge energy inputs, wealth is the possession of assembler templates (in many ways, this might be far more difficult than creating the nanomachines themselves) and large amounts of a wide variety of raw materials.

Now, what would actually happen if such "universal assemblers" became widespread in our society in combination with an array of assembler templates capable of satisfying any whim (let us say anything that currently exists)? All forms of currency would rapidly collapse to be replaced by bartering for raw materials to eventually be replaced by a currency directly based on the relative values of raw materials. Well, before that happened, theft and weapons production would probably escalate exponentially, and conflict for raw materials would break out worldwide (perhaps even escalating into nuclear war).

Of course, once the dust settles, people will still be required for defense, policing, entertainment, research, policing, and so on. There are a wide variety of potential societies that could develop, some quite pleasant, some quite hellish for the vast majority involved.

Arken

Which could be replicated at will by the machines.

You make some excellent points, tronvillain.

Wyrdsmyth

First, I don't find it very plausible that the nano-technology would be made equally available to everyone. Currently, the claim is often made that we humans have the technology and resources to feed everyone on earth -- yet everyone is not fed. Why is that? Just because we have a certain technology, and even if it is cheap and replicable, doesn't mean it will be made available to everyone, or in equal amounts. Humans just seem incapable of sharing with perfect equity, at least many do.

Second, even if the nanorobots are miraculously cheap and effective by our standards, there will still be limitations on them. For example, the nanorobots might be able to rearrange certain big molecules, but not smaller molecules; or, perhaps they might not be able to rearrange subatomic particles. So, it might NOT be possible for them to take a bunch of oxygen and nitrogen atoms and build an iron atom. There may still be certain things they can't make "out of thin air" so to speak. As tronvillain pointed out, raw materials will probably always be an issue to some degree. Even just sheer atomic mass may be a matter of supply and demand! So even if everyone had equal access to the exact same nanotechnology, not everyone would necessarily have the same access to raw materials -- and that would then, be considered a kind of wealth.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, nanorobots are still robots, and can only do what you tell them to. Just because everyone has the same tools, doesn't mean they will all make equally good use of them. Some people would almost certainly develop new technology using the nanorobots, or make improved versions of the nanorobots themselves, i.e. like those that can destroy or corrupt other peoples' nanorobots.

So, the communism conclusion being a result of cheap, widely available nanotechnology is one that I don't find very plausible.

But as to the policing issue, I think nanotechnology would make crime easier to punish, not harder. It would make it easier to monitor and control everyone. Nanocameras and nanosensors might be everywhere, on walls, floating in the air, on people. There might always be a certain level of crime, but it would probably be brought to an all-time low by such technology.

Even a communal society will be motivated to have a police force. I don't know how many policemen actually choose their professions for mere profit, but I don't think that is the main reason they do it. Even in our society, its generally accepted as being a high-risk, low-profit venture. But there seem to be many people who are drawn to law enforcement, fire prevention, paramedic and rescue work, etc. in spite of the risk and low pay. And often, workers in these fields have volunteers who work without pay. Such people are usually held in high esteem by society, and derive a lot of satisfaction from doing work that makes a difference -- those would still be motivations in a totally communist society.

Still, it's a fascinating topic. Nanotechnology will certainly have a huge impact on humanity and our everyday lives. I just don't think it will play out the way you've painted it.

contracycle

Its amazing.

Er, except that communism does NOT require a central government except in certain mythologies. The differences between Anarchism and Communism are primarily about METHODS, not goals.

Apart from that, this is indeed the basic argument of communism; since we developed inustrialisation, the redundant capitalist assumptions of scarcity are invalid. We therefore have an opportunity to structure a society based on that reality, rather than the mythology of scarcity. Nanotethcnology is only the n'th degree of this developement.

Does this mean resource competition absolutely ends? No, it just means that we can so easily achive all the necessities of life that the idea of conflict unto death is redundant. As pointed out above, despite the technical capacity to feed the world, we CHOOSE not to do so. Why this is so is left as an exercise for the reader.

markfiend

This is one of the premises of the "Culture" series of sci-fi novels and stories by Iain M Banks. (He has the nanobots collecting raw materials from asteroids, meteors, comets, etc. BTW, negating the limits on amounts of raw materials mentioned by tronvillain)

The resulting society (in Banks' books) is utopian, but I can see that dystopian results are equally likely, perhaps more likely given human nature as Wyrdsmyth's argument.

callmejay

Maybe "intellectual property" would be the only form of wealth. Suppose I have a recipe for making the biggest, strongest weaponry in the world. Without that recipe nobody else can defend against me, even though in theory, their replicators can make anything. Depending on how said replicators work, it would be easier or harder to hold onto said IP. Sort of like the music industry now, where replication is nearly cost-free.

A Pumpkin Drifter

I think nanotechnology on such a huge scale is very far fetched. Nanobots (what do you call them?) would still require energy to power them (they couldn't last forever and I doubt they would last for more than a second or two, where would they put all that fuel they need to run?) so you would still need people to provide energy AND lots and lots of extra Nanobots. Why would someone release this technology to the masses in the first place? I'm sure some company would snatch the whole thing up and sell the machines, but you would probably have to buy "designs" for things that you'd want to be built. The Nanobots would have to have some sort of blue print before they'd build anything. I'm sure it would create a whole new sort of salvaging industry of some sorts where people go to land fills to get the raw materials these bots would use. They could come around and drop it off into some sort of bin at your home and the nanobots could rummage through it. I think a regular government and society could still exist without major upheavals from this technology because there would still be political and social issues to be dealt with. There would be the other jobs too like musicians, dancers, film makers, and other such services that people have mentioned before.

That's all I can pull out right now...