What happen when we can print life?

[aspen]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/14/3d-print-molecules-machine-drugs_n_6864636.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

 

[River Jordan]

Fundamentalists will run into the lab, smash the equipment, and shout "You're not allowed to do that! All reality must align with my interpretation of scripture!"

 

[HammerStone]

"When you put the power to manufacture into the hands of everyone, history speaks toward tremendous impact," Burke said in the statement. "A 3-D printer for molecules could allow us to harness all the creativity, innovation, and outside-the-box thinking that comes when non-experts start to use technology that used to only be in the hands of a select few."

I think this commentary sums up the benefits; it would seem that the creation of very important and very expensive things may become affordable for the masses, but I think this carries some underlying assumptions with it. I am concerned about the period of inequality immediately after such a device is created. At least initially, this will be something only a very limited and let's face it, wealthy, individual will be able to use. The question becomes, do we hope that the employment of such a tool will be effectively governed, or would a concentrate few use such a device to further distance themselves from the hoi polloi? I don't know the answer. I would like to think better of humanity, but look at what happened once weapons became even more deadly.

Now imagine encoding the sorts of things that could bring power and destroy other humans. It could produce other humans.

I hate to go science fiction, but we are at a point where the creation of organized matter would increase personal power almost exponentially at a rate of the size of a government or entire people. This is unheard of in the history of humanity. Imagine the ramifications of a bad software glitch or hackers mucking up their own hack on the device.

With that said, in reference to the above, I think fundamentalism will be the very least of your problems, though one does ponder what ISIL would do with such a device?

Interesting that this discovery comes on the heels of an interesting post by Rod Dreher that's kept me thinking for a week or so now. Rod posted a blog entry entitled "Silicon Valley Mordor" which quickly looks at the ethical questions that will almost surely come in to play. His article is premised around the Singularity postulated by Ray Kurzweil (now of Google) where man and machine are fused, leading to a form of almost eternal life. The article is based on a discussion that took place on Edge between Daniel Kahneman and Yuval Noah Harari about technological advancement and death becoming optional. (Edge is sort of like Ted Talks meets an academic interview format.)

Link: http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-daniel_kahneman-death-is-optional

He scores some key points:

And this opens the possibility of creating huge gaps between the rich and the poor, bigger than ever existed before in history. And many people say no, it will not happen, because we have the experience of the 20th century, that we had many medical advances, beginning with the rich or with the most advanced countries, and gradually they trickled down to everybody, and now everybody enjoys antibiotics or vaccinations or whatever, so this will happen again.

And as a historian, my main task is to say no, there were peculiar reasons why medicine in the 20th century was egalitarian, why the discoveries trickled down to everybody. These unique conditions may not repeat themselves in the 21st century, so you should broaden your thinking, and you should take into consideration the possibility that medicine in the 21st century will be elitist, and that you will see growing gaps because of that, biological gaps between rich and poor and between different countries. And you cannot just trust a process of trickling down to solve this problem.

But in the 21st century, there is a good chance that most humans will lose, they are losing, their military and economic value. This is true for the military, it's done, it's over. The age of the masses is over. We are no longer in the First World War, where you take millions of soldiers, give each one a rifle and have them run forward. And the same thing perhaps is happening in the economy. Maybe the biggest question of 21st century economics is what will be the need in the economy for most people in the year 2050.

Death is optional. And if you think about it from the viewpoint of the poor, it looks terrible, because throughout history, death was the great equalizer. The big consolation of the poor throughout history was that okay, these rich people, they have it good, but they're going to die just like me. But think about the world, say, in 50 years, 100 years, where the poor people continue to die, but the rich people, in addition to all the other things they get, also get an exemption from death. That's going to bring a lot of anger.

Now, what we're talking about today is not that computers will be like humans. I think that many of these science fiction scenarios, that computers will be like humans, are wrong. Computers are very, very, very far from being like humans, especially when it comes to consciousness. The problem is different, that the system, the military and economic and political system doesn't really need consciousness.

We're basically learning to produce bodies and minds. Bodies and minds are going to be the two main products of the next wave of all these changes. And if there is a gap between those that know how to produce bodies and minds and those that do not, then this is far greater than anything we saw before in history.

And this time, if you're not fast enough to become part of the revolution, then you'll probably become extinct. Countries like China, missed the train for the Industrial Revolution, but 150 years later, they somehow have managed to catch up, largely, speaking in economic terms, thanks to the power of cheap labor. Now, those who miss the train will never get a second chance. If a country, if a people, today are left behind, they will never get a second chance, especially because cheap labor will count for nothing. Once you know how to produce bodies and brains and minds, cheap labor in Africa or South Asia or wherever, it simply counts for nothing. So in geopolitical terms, we might see a repeat of the 19th century, but in a much larger scale.

I probably way over-quoted already, but if you have the time, at least read the interview. We think working through gay marriage and stem cell research is difficult and frustrating. I think as futurism is beginning to show, we've got even larger problems coming down the pipes and the Church universal better begin to have the moral framework for responding to the inevitable Materialistic notions that progress demands an increasing forward march. As Harari says in the interview, we do not currently have the framework for understanding this from a technical level. I believe Christianity can offer a response to this, but we had better get our story straight.

מרנא תא
(Marantha)

 

[lforrest]

Sounds dangerous. File / open / plague / print.

 

[pom2014]

Lforrest, only if you know what to put together molecularly. Most people don't even have an elementary sense of physics or chemistry. You can say to many that dihydrogen oxide is a killer in quantities of just a tablespoon. When mixed with other chemicals it can become corrosive or toxic. And at high temps or pressure can damage or kill thousands.
But few would know what it is by that name.

 

[lforrest]

Hydrogen peroxide can be quite hazzardus, but I assume your referring to dihydrogen monoxide; aka water.

I doubt just anyone will get one of these printers, and they will be limited to organic compounds. However their use should be controlled, as it could be used to advance biological warfare.

 

[KingJ]

Sounds dangerous. File / open / plague / print.

ROFL

Fundamentalists will run into the lab, smash the equipment, and shout "You're not allowed to do that! All reality must align with my interpretation of scripture!"

No River, this would be classified as actual science.

I can picture evolutionists hogging the printers / buying up all the printing material in an attempt to recreate the same parts millions and millions of times over.... expecting arms to become wings!!!! ...be honest now, you would try that!

What happen when we can print life?

Well we can never print life. Frankenstein will stay sci-fi for eternity. But we can certainly extend our lifespan with this technology.

As far as I recall we can't recreate the brain and heart at the moment. I guess in time we might be able to keep the heart going for longer. But the brain. I don't know. That would be a real milestone!!