From: Marc Geddes (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 22:00:41 MST
--- Dani Eder <email@example.com> wrote:
> Manufacturing productivity trends point to highly
> automated production arriving in 10-15 years. The
> trends I track are for the US durable goods sector
> (things designed to last more than 3 years), which
> is the total productivity for all existing plants
> in place no matter how old or new. The trend for
> new factories is already highly automated. For
> example, a current news story:
> says Samsung will invest $24 billion in chip
> factories in the next 6 years, which will yield
> 10,000 new jobs. That's $2.4 million in factory
> investment per job.
Interesting. Well yup, the 15 year time-frame takes
us to 2020, which is when the nano-tech revolution is
predicted to start hitting and most manufacturing jobs
should rapidly get eliminated.
> 1) What happens to the ~1/2 of the workforce that
> has had their jobs automated?
> 2) What becomes possible when a set of automated
> factories can produce all of each other's parts,
> or enough of each other's parts plus selling
> surplus production to pay for the remainder, so that
> they become a self-sustaining ecosystem?
> These issues will be hitting before the nanotech
> and AI risks, most likely. The manufacturing jobs
> issue is already politically significant in US
> that have a high share of such. In this
> economic recovery, productivity improvements are
> eliminating jobs faster than demand increases are
> creating them, so there is a net job loss in the
> manufacturing sector.
Well, there may not be that much disruption. What
percentage of the work-force is actually in the
manufacturing sector? Less than 20%. 80% of jobs
won't be disrupted by automation/nano-tech. But yes,
that 20% of jobs scheduled for elimination might still
cause a fair bit of trouble.
> My plan involves building a strong defensible
> residence in a remote location in case of civil
> disruption in the next 10-15 years. It happens it
> will look like a castle, because medieval
> is my hobby. But castles were defensible residences
> in their time. It won't stop a government attack,
> but it should be proof against looters with small
I think a 'clean win' to Singularity requires FAI
If FAI comes later than 2020, then we can still win,
but things will be 'messy'. After that date I do
think that we are at risk of serious civil disruptions
and techno-disasters. I think the mess will get worse
the longer we are without FAI.
If we get into the 2040's and FAI is still not here,
then I think we are at serious risk of existential
threats leading to total extinction. So the 2040's
could well be the final dead-line for FAI.
Had you considered a move to the state of New
Hampshire? A number of Libertarian-Transhumanists
have agreed to start gathering in New Hampshire. The
'Free State Project' aims to get 20 000 liberty
oriented people to move there. I'm seriously
considering a move there at some point.
> Part of what I want to do at the residence is study
> automation/robotics/replication/parts closure.
> The power source problem looks already solved.
> Spectrolab, a division of Boeing that makes solar
> cells mostly for satellites, has a triple-junction
> cell that is 30% efficient at 400 suns. So while
> the cells themselves are more expensive per sq cm
> than conventional solar cell panels, you don't need
> very many square cm of cells, and reflectors are
> much cheaper per square meter than semiconductors.
> Overall they require 1/10 the dollar value of flat
> panel cells for the same output, which makes solar a
> cost competitive power source.
Sounds cool. I'll see you in New Hampshire then?
> What we need is for life expectancy to improve ten
> times faster than it has been (i.e. 1.0 year per
> year rather than 0.1 year per year). At the current
> rate of improvement, you can expect to live a few
> years longer than the previous generation. At a
> sufficiently high rate of improvement, your chances
> of lasting long enough for a long term-solution like
> uploading improve dramatically.
> That can come in theory from piecemeal medical
> advances each of which only adds a few years, but
> in the aggregate add decades.
See my other post. I think that there is only so much
the bio-medical route can do. You should be able to
extend life-span by 20-40 years through the
bio-medical route, but I don't see max life-span going
above 120 through the bio-medical route. Really
radical extension will require substantial
intervention over the entire human body system - for
that we'll need AI and Nano.
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"The Universe...or nothing!"
Please visit my web-sites.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy : http://www.prometheuscrack.com
Mathematics, Mind and Matter : http://www.riemannai.org
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT