Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future (37 page)

Once the NNI was actually implemented, however, an entirely different vision emerged. In Drexler’s words, the newly empowered leaders immediately “purged the NNI’s plans of any mention of atoms or molecules in connection with manufacturing and redefined nanotechnology to include anything sufficiently small. Tiny particles were in, atomic precision was out.”
¹⁸
At least from Drexler’s perspective, it was as though the nanotechnology ship had been hijacked by pirates who then proceeded to throw the dynamic molecular machines overboard and sail away with a cargo composed entirely of materials built from tiny, but static, particles. Under the purview of the NNI, virtually all the nanotechnology funding went to research based on relatively traditional techniques in chemistry and materials science; the science of molecular assembly and manufacturing ended up with little or nothing.

A number of factors were behind the sudden shift away from molecular manufacturing. In 2000, Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy wrote an article for
Wired
magazine entitled “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” In his article, Joy highlighted the possibly
existential dangers associated with genetics, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. Drexler himself had discussed the possibility of out-of-control, self-replicating molecular assemblers that might use us—and just about everything else—as a kind of feedstock. In
Engines of Creation,
Drexler called it the “gray goo” scenario and noted ominously that it “makes one thing perfectly clear: We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers.”
¹⁹
Joy thought that something of an understatement, writing that “[g]ray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident.”
²⁰
Yet more fuel was thrown on the fire in 2002 when Michael Crichton published his best-selling novel
Prey
—which portrayed swarming clouds of predatory nanobots and opened with an introduction that, once again, quoted passages from Drexler’s book.

Public concern over gray goo and feasting nanobots was only part of the problem. Other scientists were beginning to question whether molecular assembly was feasible at all. Most prominent among the skeptics was the late (and aptly named) Richard Smalley, who had won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work on nano-scale materials. Smalley had come to the conclusion that molecular assembly and manufacturing, outside the realm of biological systems, was fundamentally at odds with the realities of chemistry. In a public debate with Drexler conducted in the pages of scientific journals, he argued that atoms could not simply be shoved into place using mechanical means; rather, they had to be coaxed into forming bonds, and building molecular machinery capable of achieving this would be impossible. Drexler then accused Smalley of misrepresenting his work, and noted that Smalley himself had once said that “when a scientist says something is possible, they’re probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it’s impossible, they’re probably wrong.” The debate intensified and became more personal, culminating with Smalley accusing Drexler of having “scared our children”
and then concluding that “while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams.”
²¹

The nature and magnitude of nanotechnology’s future impact will depend in large measure on whether Drexler or Smalley ultimately prove to be correct in their assessment of the feasibility of molecular assembly. If Smalley’s pessimism prevails, then nanotechnology will continue to be a field focused primarily on the development of new materials and substances. Dramatic progress in this arena has already occurred, most notably with the discovery and development of carbon nanotubes—structures in which sheets of carbon atoms are rolled into long, hollow threads with an extraordinary range of properties. Carbon nanotube–based materials are potentially a hundred times as strong as steel, while weighing only one-sixth as much.
²²
They also offer dramatically enhanced conductivity of both electricity and heat. Carbon nanotubes offer the potential for new lightweight structural materials for cars and aircraft, and may also play an important role in the development of next-generation electronic technologies. Other important advances are occurring in the development of powerful new environmental filtering systems and in medical diagnostic tests and cancer treatments. In 2013, researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras announced a nano-particle-based filtering technology that can provide clean water for a family of five at a cost of just $16 per year.
²³
Nano-filters may also eventually provide more effective ways to desalinate ocean water. If nanotechnology follows this path, it will continue to grow in importance, with dramatic benefits flowing to a wide range of applications, including manufacturing, medicine, solar energy, construction, and the environment. The fabrication of nano-materials is, however, a highly capital- and technology-intensive process; accordingly, there are few reasons to expect that the industry will create large numbers of new jobs.

If, on the other hand, Drexler’s vision proves to be even partially correct, the eventual impact of nanotechnology may be amplified to a
level nearly beyond comprehension. In
Radical Abundance,
Drexler describes what a futuristic fabrication facility equipped to produce large products might look like. In a room about the size of a garage, robotic assembly machines surround a moveable platform. The room’s back wall is covered by an array of chambers, each of which is a scaled-down model of the fabrication room. Each chamber, in turn, contains still smaller versions of itself. As the chambers scale down in size, the machinery evolves from normal to micro-size, and then finally to the nano-scale, where individual atoms are arranged into molecules. Once the process is started, fabrication begins at the molecular level and then rapidly scales up as each subsequent level assembles the resulting components. Drexler imagines that a factory like this could produce and assemble a complex product like an automobile within a minute or two. A similar facility would just as easily reverse the process, disassembling finished products into constituent materials that could then be recycled.
²⁴

Clearly, all this remains in the realm of science fiction for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the ultimate realization of molecular assembly would mean the end of the manufacturing industry as we understand it; it would also likely bring about the demise of entire sectors of the economy focused on areas like retail, distribution, and waste management. The global impact on employment would be staggering.

At the same time, of course, manufactured products would become vastly less expensive. In a sense, molecular manufacturing offers the prospect of the digital economy made tangible. It’s often said that “information wants to be free.” Advanced nanotechnology might allow a similar phenomenon to unfold for material goods. Desktop versions of Drexler’s fabricator might someday offer capability similar to the “replicator” used in the television show
Star Trek.
Just as Captain Picard’s often-repeated command of “Tea, Earl Grey, Hot” instantly conjures up the proper drink, a molecular fabricator might someday create nearly anything we desire.

Among some techno-optimists, the prospect of molecular manufacturing is associated strongly with the concept of an eventual “post-scarcity” economy in which nearly all material goods are abundant and virtually free. Services are likewise assumed to be provided by advanced AI. In this technological utopia, resource and environmental constraints would be eliminated by universal, molecular recycling and abundant clean energy. The market economy might cease to exist, and (as on
Star Trek
) there would be no need for money. While that may sound like a very inviting scenario, there are a great many details that would need to be fleshed out. Land, for example, would still remain scarce, making it unclear how living space would be allocated in a world largely without jobs, money, or opportunities for most people to advance their station economically. Likewise, it’s unclear how the incentives necessary for further progress would be maintained in the absence of a market economy.

Physicist (and
Star Trek
fan) Michio Kaku has said that he thinks a nanotechnology-driven utopia might be a possibility within a hundred years or so.
*
In the meantime, there are a number of more practical and immediate questions associated with molecular manufacturing. The “grey goo” scenario and other fears regarding self-replication remain very real concerns, as does the potential for deliberately destructive use of the technology. Indeed, molecular assembly, if it were weaponized by an authoritarian regime, might bring about a world order very different from utopia. Drexler warns that while the United States has almost completely turned away from any organized research into molecular manufacturing, the same is not necessarily true of other countries. The United States, Europe, and China all make roughly the same level of investment in nanotechnology research, but the focus of this research might be entirely
different within each jurisdiction.
²⁵
As with artificial intelligence, there is the potential for an all-out arms race, and prematurely adopting a defeatist approach toward molecular assembly might be tantamount to unilateral disarmament.

T
HIS CHAPTER HAS BEEN
a fairly radical departure from the more practical and immediate arguments I’ve been making elsewhere throughout the book. The prospects of true thinking machines, advanced nanotechnology—and, especially, the Singularity—are, to say the least, highly speculative. It may be that none of these things are possible, or they may lie centuries in the future. If any of these breakthroughs are ultimately achieved, however, there can be little doubt that they would dramatically accelerate the trend toward automation and massively disrupt the economy in unforeseen ways.

There is also, to some extent, a kind of paradox associated with the realization of these futuristic technologies. The development of both advanced AI and molecular manufacturing will require enormous investment in research and development. However, long before such genuinely advanced technologies become practical, more specialized forms of AI and robotics are likely to threaten vast numbers of jobs at a variety of skill levels. As we saw in the previous chapter, that could well undermine market demand—and therefore the incentive for further investment in innovation. In other words, the research necessary to achieve Singularity-level technologies might never be funded, and progress could, in effect, become self-limiting.

None of the technologies we looked at in this chapter are necessary to the primary arguments I have been putting forth here; rather, they might be viewed as possible—and dramatic—amplifiers of a relentless technology-driven trend toward greater inequality and rising unemployment. In the next chapter we’ll look at some possible policy measures that might help counteract that trend.

*
Given recent developments, some readers may be tempted to inject a somewhat snide remark about the National Security Agency at this point. As Hawking’s article suggests, there are genuine (and conceivably existential) dangers associated with artificial intelligence. If truly advanced AI is destined to arise somewhere, the NSA is far from the least attractive option.

*
It’s worth noting that, while machine-based intelligence is the most often cited path to super-intelligence, it could also be biologically based. Human intelligence might be augmented with technology, or future humans might be genetically engineered for superior intelligence. While most Western countries would likely be very squeamish about anything with echoes of eugenics, there is evidence that the Chinese have few qualms about the idea. The Beijing Genomics Institute has collected thousands of DNA samples from people known to have very high IQs and is working on isolating the genes associated with intelligence. The Chinese might be able to use this information to screen embryos for high intelligence and drive their population to become smarter over time.

*
You can watch Michio Kaku discuss the post-scarcity economy in the video “Can Nanotechnology Create Utopia?,” available on YouTube.

Chapter 10

TOWARD A NEW ECONOMIC PARADIGM

In an interview with
CBS News,
the president of the United States was asked if the nation’s dire unemployment problem was likely to improve soon. “There’s no magic solution,” he replied. “To even stand still we have to move very fast.” By this, he meant that the economy needs to create tens of thousands of new jobs every month just to keep pace with population growth and prevent the unemployment rate from rising even further. He pointed out that “we have a combination of older workers who have been thrown out of work because of technology and younger people coming in” with too little education. The president proposed a tax cut to stimulate the economy, but he kept returning to the subject of education—in particular, advocating support for programs focused on “vocational education” and “job retraining.” The problem, he said, wasn’t going to solve itself: “[T]oo many people are coming into the labor market and too many machines are throwing people out.”
¹