the end of money
Jan. 16th, 2003 10:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eFor a long time money has been a useful tool, however it might soon become far less important, and may even disappear altogether:
There are a number of people working on creating what are effectively 'replicator' machines which can build any object. There are already primitive versions that are used for prototyping objects for manufacture. But the new machines currently in development are much more sophisticated and will replace assembly lines. The real revolution will begin when somebody uses a replicator to build another replicator; then everything will change overnight. After that money will be needed for just land, human services, energy, and food.
When replicators become sophisticated enough to make food then the awful burden we put on the world's ecologies will be relieved. The oceans can regenerate and vast tracts of land under cultivation will be released back to the other living things we share this planet with. Using replicators for food also means money will only be needed for land, human services, and energy.
Due to better design, equipment is becoming more energy efficient. My little PalmVx computer can run for the best part of a month on a trickle of power, if I hardly use it. If I use it lots then it will still last several days before it needs recharging. This cute little machine has capabilities far greater than those of computers that used to occupy entire floors of buildings and required kilowatts of power. This trend is enhanced and supplemented by the recent troubles in the mid-east which promise to make the world more independent of oil (at long last) using alternative sources of energy, including non-polluting hydrogen power. We already have watches that use the body heat of the wearer as their power source. Eventually I expect greater use to be made of the sun and ambient energy for powering far more efficient devices. That will reduce the requirement for money to just land and human services.
Two things will remove human services from the money equation. The first is the development of artificial intelligence and robots. The second is the increasing tendency of people these days to give things away. For the first time in history large numbers of people are so well off that they can afford to do things simply because they want to. In times past it was only the very wealthy who could do that, so most artistic and scientific advancement depended upon them. The growth of Open Source is testament to the human desire to do great things without regard to financial reward.
That just leaves land as the only necessity that requires money. But as people's standard of living rises then population growth drops -- a well-documented effect. When we are all living well I expect there will be enough land for all. There is also the fact that virtual reality (VR) lets us build limitless numbers of infinite universes... but I shall leave that discussion till later.
There are a number of people working on creating what are effectively 'replicator' machines which can build any object. There are already primitive versions that are used for prototyping objects for manufacture. But the new machines currently in development are much more sophisticated and will replace assembly lines. The real revolution will begin when somebody uses a replicator to build another replicator; then everything will change overnight. After that money will be needed for just land, human services, energy, and food.
When replicators become sophisticated enough to make food then the awful burden we put on the world's ecologies will be relieved. The oceans can regenerate and vast tracts of land under cultivation will be released back to the other living things we share this planet with. Using replicators for food also means money will only be needed for land, human services, and energy.
Due to better design, equipment is becoming more energy efficient. My little PalmVx computer can run for the best part of a month on a trickle of power, if I hardly use it. If I use it lots then it will still last several days before it needs recharging. This cute little machine has capabilities far greater than those of computers that used to occupy entire floors of buildings and required kilowatts of power. This trend is enhanced and supplemented by the recent troubles in the mid-east which promise to make the world more independent of oil (at long last) using alternative sources of energy, including non-polluting hydrogen power. We already have watches that use the body heat of the wearer as their power source. Eventually I expect greater use to be made of the sun and ambient energy for powering far more efficient devices. That will reduce the requirement for money to just land and human services.
Two things will remove human services from the money equation. The first is the development of artificial intelligence and robots. The second is the increasing tendency of people these days to give things away. For the first time in history large numbers of people are so well off that they can afford to do things simply because they want to. In times past it was only the very wealthy who could do that, so most artistic and scientific advancement depended upon them. The growth of Open Source is testament to the human desire to do great things without regard to financial reward.
That just leaves land as the only necessity that requires money. But as people's standard of living rises then population growth drops -- a well-documented effect. When we are all living well I expect there will be enough land for all. There is also the fact that virtual reality (VR) lets us build limitless numbers of infinite universes... but I shall leave that discussion till later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-15 08:25 pm (UTC)Seriously, though, I don't see the world turning out to be like Star Trek (much as I'd love to live in The Culture, as envisioned by Iain M. Banks). For that to happen, there'd need to be a fundamental shift in Human Nature.
It is a nice vision, though, and I think there'll be significant changes down the road (within our lifetime), thanks to the ever-increasing rate of change in technology.
For me, the world's main problem is energy-use, which is why I'm glad you brought up the issue of efficiency. People in the western/idustrialised world are wasting too much energy. It's that simple.
It's not a question of finding ways to generate more electricity or mine more oil or doing the whole process at reduced expense. Suppose we blooped a scientific breakthrough and had usable cold-fusion units in the suburban home in ten years. The only change on our usage habits would be increased apathy. People wouldn't care if they left the lights on all the time, etc. Screw the $expense of such a scheme; the net cost would still the same -- we're killing ourselves with wasted energy. (For starters, think about the energy bound up in petrol. Now think about how little useful locomotion we get from a car. It's a joke that we're using such an inefficient machine these days.)Whether it's through wasted heat of the continued use of wasteful mechanical devices, it's all the same. The energy has to go somewhere, and usually it's dumped into the environment in one form or another.
I seem to have become a bit sidetracked. End rant.
Ta for the interesting article, Miriam.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-15 10:29 pm (UTC)I don't see a Star Trek future coming -- at least I hope not -- I'm not keen on that authoritarian world. But I do expect replicators and a number of very cool 'trekkie' things soon. A couple of months ago I was talking to people about the same things I wrote above and was saying that I thought replicators would be about 20 or 30 years away, but they have more recently taken big leaps ahead in ways I hadn't expected, and I now think we will see them inside the decade. (Check out page 12 of 11th January 2003 New Scientist -- the current issue.)
Efficient energy use is gradually coming. One of the worst offenders is the ordinary home. We are still building homes the way we did centuries ago, even though we know much more about such things now. See my little checklist at http://werple.net.au/~miriam/efficientHomes.html for a quick look at what can be done to make a house that costs little to run for a lifetime.
A lot of what I expect to happen will happen because of human nature, not in spite of it. The Open Source movement is a great example of that. People like to do good things; they like to create cool stuff. There is some evidence that even the pyramids were built voluntarily by people because they wanted to -- not by slaves under threat of their lives. I think that the more we are freed from the day-to-day grind, the more we make great things.
Do you doubt this? If all your time was your own to do with as you wished, what would you do? You would make cool things and go to see and hear great things done by other people. You are the normal human -- most people are like that.
I am not saying that utopia is at hand. I haven't even touched upon the big problems inherent in some of these developments. Suffice it to say that for each of these advances there is a drawback, but they can and will be fixed as we go on.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-16 06:14 am (UTC)I strongly agree with everything you've said above (with one big exception...see below). Your analogy between great works like the Pyramids and Open Source software is excellent. :) Such monuments only get started when there's a large group of like-minded people, and only get finished when those people are working on it for the creativity and love of the accomplishment.
Thanks for the info on that New Scientist article (had a quick look for it on the web, but without success), so I'll take a trip to the local library some time over the next few days. :)
Some time ago, I saw a link to your article on house-design (from Cam's LJ?). Can't remember if I emailed you a response. All good points, and good to see research from varied sources compiled in one place.
My only objection is towards the idea that kitchens should have only one doorway and the implication that children in kitchens is bad and/or that it's difficult to child-safe a kitchen. Traffic is an important consideration: access to various areas of the kitchen is important, as often incoming goods and food-serving are by different paths. Ventilation is another aspect that benefits from more than one door. most importantly, I think that children (people in general) should be encouraged in the kitchen for learning skills and an appreciation for food. Traditionally, I see food-preparation (the act and the area in which it takes place) as being the social hub of families/households/communities. Junkfood/fast-food is a killer of this spirit, while a dinner-party (or even a good restaurant) is a celebration of it, IMHO.
Onto my dispute with what you said above (jeez, it sounds like I'm being an argumentative nit-picker, doesn't it? :) Relax, these are a small number of things compared with the large areas where out opinions overlap.)
Do you doubt this? If all your time was your own to do with as you wished, what would you do? You would make cool things and go to see and hear great things done by other people.
I'd do that; normal people wouldn't.
I sing, roleplay and paint/draw for my own desire for artistic expression, but it's also a free gift to others who want to see/hear it. I suppose going to a club such as Abyss/Psychonaut/Blue Velvet is sorta like this too. :)
You are the normal human -- most people are like that.
This is where I think you're wrong. I think that you and I have very different views on the average person and what it is to be a "normal human". (See rant.)
And this is where the discussion comes to a loop. We're back to talking about Human Nature. :->
no subject
Date: 2003-01-16 07:40 am (UTC)In my little piece on efficient home design I (unclearly) meant that having kids running through a kitchen was inviting accidents. That was the reason for making the kitchen a dead-end, with just the one doorway. Ventilation is no problem -- ceiling fans and windows can do that well enough. I am very much in favor of having kids in any part of the house where they can learn, including the kitchen, but running through it on their way to somewhere else is a great way to get a pot of boiling water spilled... on them.
I am sorry, but I have to disagree completely with your dismissal of most folk. I have expressed so many times to friends that I don't know any "normal" people, that I think if I really met one they would be so bizarre that paradoxically they would be anything but normal.
I have worked in retail and many jobs where I had to deal with ordinary folk. I have come to the conclusion that pretty-much everybody is weird. The thing is though, that they only let you see part of them, and worse, you only get to see what you are willing to look for. It is like a contract -- you (non-verbally) tell them that you find them interesting and cool, and they open up to show you their wondrous stuff inside; you let them know (body language again) that you think they are one of the despised "normal" tribe and they exile you and treat you with the same outsider coldness -- they are in and you are out, and you have all your worst suspicions confirmed.
But in reality we are all weird -- you just have to find their bright, glinting cracks in that facade they've put up for protection. If you let them know you're interested they will give you a guided tour of the most colorful rainbows shining from those cracks. Most of those house-mortgaged, 2.2-childed, Ray Martin-loving people are actually wonderfully crazy nuts.