Firstly, you say the essay shows ‘An inability to understand that there really is scarcity in Second Life that is hog-tied brutally to the scarcities of real life, namely, 1) FPS and 2) Money’.

But in the essay, I point out that ‘participation in SL requires Internet access and a supply of electricity. It requires constant maintainance of the servers that run the SL grid. Even the most dedicated immersionist hell-bent on projecting their mind into a digital personae cannot ignore an empty stomach for too long, and larders don’t get stocked unless you pay money for food, or for whatever is needed to produce it. In short, all SL residents have RL bills to pay. This places an irreducible cost on every build’.

I also show that both Drexler and Frietas (probably the top names in nanosystems) have determined that goods manufactured by molecular nanotech will not be free.

Drexler is quoted as saying, ‘there will always be limiting costs, because resources- whether energy, matter, or design skill- always have some alternative use. Costs will not fall to zero, but it seems they could fall very low indeed’.

Frietas is quoted as saying, ‘‘even if the cost of material and energy inputs fell to zero, say through the use of recyclable nanoblocks, there would still be an amortized capital cost plus a fixed intangible cost built into all products manufactured by the personal nanofactory… adding in the amortized initial capital outlay… plus intangible costs, manufacturing cost for consumer products should be $1/Kg’.

‘An inablity to understand the FIC problem, even in a discussion of caste…You can only get ahead by being a harsh creator fascist brutally unreasonable about the originality and frequency of your innovative designs. That breeds the most impossibly arrogant prim-a donnas and digital divas who require a harsh and hierarchical system of introduction, apprenticeship, partnership, etc.

Firstly, I don’t know what the ‘FIC problem’ is, so it’s highly likely some mistakes have been made here. But in the essay I say ‘by granting everybody the right to buy and sell services and virtual goods to one another in a free market, it was perhaps inevitable that wealth would accumulate around the gifted few who can produce masterpieces of whatever they make’.

This point is also made by Leia Chase, who I quoted as saying, ‘make custom-designed items the commodity to those who think of themselves as wealthy’.

And then there is that quote from Gwyn, ‘“You can see a huge gap between the resident’s classes… while perhaps 5% of all residents are active participants in the economy (who) contribute to the overall content, the remaining 95% are completely out of the loop”.

Like I said, I don’t know what the FIC problem actually is, but I do feel the quotes passages are not entirely incompatible with your descriptions regarding ‘arrogant prim-a donnas and digital divas’ etc etc.

‘The role of the software makers, that have a vested interest in undermining land ownership and private property and a vested interest in keeping the FIC class afloat.’

Of course, there’s always the possibility that nanotech will be developed with artificial constraints that severly restrict its potential in order to massively favour an elite class over the majority. I pretty much disregard the possibility that totally unrestricted fabbing will be made available, saying ‘it seems doubtful that fully-replicating nanosystems will make it into general use. This would limit the scenario in which economies as we know them end, because productive economic activity would be required in order to afford replacement nanoblocks’.

I point out that the price of MM goods will have to pay for the cost of R+D, and wonder, ‘will there be a heavy R+D price imposed on it, as is the case with lifesaving medicine?’

Meanwhile, out in RL, I make several references to technologies that were once so difficult to operate it required some skill to use them. You once had to be a car mechanic in order to get any use out of a car. Operating computers once required the highest levels of mathematical skill and mechanical/electrical knowhow. But, despite the fact that both cars and computers are a great deal MORE sophisticated today, the level of skill required to operate them is much LESS.

People quite possibly read through the draught specs for a nanofactory design, see that it is the most complex bit of technology ever conceived, and conclude that it must therefore require enormous skill to use. But several examples of ‘encapsulation’ show that ain’t necessarily so.

‘you either believe an open system with randomness, different levels, freedom, non-elitism produces sustainable genius — and a sustainable community for everybody. Or you believe that only technical elites sequestered in special governing clusters can make a society work and deserve to be the ones to make it work.’

Where nanotech is concerned, I think it’s a bit too early to say which way it will go. That’s why my essay ended by saying ‘Our best hope for ensuring an inclusive nanotech civilization (rather than one that disfavours the majority of citizens), lies in studying the underlying mechanisms of agalmic activity in SL and guiding the evolution of the metaverse so that it may act as a bridge, enabling us to make the transition to the Diamond Age as smoothly as possible’. Note the reference to a nanotech civilization that disfavours the majority of citizens.

I think SL definitely provides evidence that nanotech society could indeed develop into the dystopian scenarios imagined by Berube. I also believe it is that side of SL that grabs the most reportage in the media. But I also wonder if there is this silent majority in SL that actually work and trade under agalmic principles?

Anyway, thanks a lot for your comments. As you can see I did not counter them all.

1. An inability to understand that there really is scarcity in Second Life that is hog-tied brutally to the scarcities of real life, namely, 1) FPS and 2) Money. You can never be too rich, too thin, and have too much FPS, honey. And FPS comes when you can either buy an entire sim, or continent, and control what happens with avatars and bling and scripts and for that you need real-life money.

2. An inablity to understand the FIC problem, even in a discussion of caste. This problem takes a number of internal and external forms. One problem is the need for apprenticeship in a world governed by harshly difficult tools and the ability to copy everything. You can only get ahead by being a harsh creator fascist brutally unreasonable about the originality and frequency of your innovative designs. That breeds the most impossibly arrogant prim-a donnas and digital divas who require a harsh and hierarchical system of introduction, apprenticeship, partnership, etc.

3. The role of the software makers, that have a vested interest in undermining land ownership and private property and a vested interest in keeping the FIC class afloat.

4.Corporativism — nay, fascism. When you have Lem Skall saying it would have been different (and he likely means ‘better’) if you had a skilled and feted developer class use the platform for all kinds of specialized worlds that could be linked “later” (probably “never” for some “you don’t like”), he is setting up a rigid corporativist type world, with classes or castes or estates within the society — the builders there, the thinkers over there, the service providers still lower, etc.

5. The problem of the Extropian belief system itself colouring these arguments. Basically, if I could sum up this problem, it works like this: the difference between Athens or Sparta and their philosophies. In one, there is an open democratic marketplace, family structures, old teaching young but not by cultic removal from their homes. In the other, young people go away to apprentice or become soldiers under a harsh discipline.

Or take the concept of the public school or the private school. In one, children of differing abilities are put randomly into one class merely by age grouping, and the best can succeed and the others have a chance to emulate the best or stay at their level. In this model, the class of 40 might produce one genius, that the other 39 have helped create in an open context.

In the other model, the 40 are all gifted and talented and bred well, and driven to excel. The class of gifted 40 are all supposed to be geniuses, but this inevitably creates a situation where some aren’t really, but their fathers give a lot to the school or they are good at basketball.

That is, you either believe an open system with randomness, different levels, freedom, non-elitism produces sustainable genius — and a sustainable community for everybody. Or you believe that only technical elites sequestered in special governing clusters can make a society work and deserve to be the ones to make it work. Snowcrash indeed.

Well it’s been a while and I notice AT has not elaborated on these supposed ‘gaps’.

I do know of one possible ommission. I did not discuss SeeD AI. But that was a calculated decision on my part since combining SeeD AI with molecular nanotechnology seems to result in an acceleration towards incomprehensibility.

Basically, a SeeD AI is an artificial intelligence that can comprehend its own OS and debug/rewrite it. It would be like Gwyn A) having access to and knowledge of the software of her intelligence and B) being able to modify it, debug it, rewrite it etc. It is then hypothesised that having upgraded her own OS from ‘Gwyn 1.0′ to ‘Gwyn 1.1′, upgraded Gwyn is then smart enough to see how to further modify the OS to get Gwyn 1.2 and THAT version of Gwyn…well you get the idea.

So SeeD AI knows how to combine building blocks of information into increasingly capable minds capable of combining building blocks of information in a positive feedback loop of recursive self enhancement.

Combined with molecular nanotech, you would get a SeeD AI able to not only recursively self-enhance its SOFTWARE but also design itself ever more capable HARDWARE; reworking not just the building blocks of information but also the building blocks of matter.

I have discussed possible implications of SeeD AI/nanotech in essays like ‘Singularity Fallacies’ and ‘Struldbrug Fallacy’ but on this occasion I thought I would give people a break and write a slightly watered down speculative piece on future tech;)

As for the overall concept of SL as an agalmia, well, I guess you make a strong point, but the whole theory of “agalmias” seem pretty much discredited these days. A quick search on the Wikipedia has shown me what the world thinks about agalmias

Then again, Wikipedians have their own social agendas, and they vote to delete articles (and yes, I’ve been a victim of that, too!) so I hardly trust them.

In any case, wonderful essay! I just wish I knew you had it published on Transumanar too — minus spelling mistakes, which take *hours* to catch. If there are still a few left, they’re all my fault