Ed,
I am sure that DNA-controlled production is going to be very much sooner
than we might imagine. I have two reasons for saying this.
Firstly, research and development is going to be extraordinarily cheap --
perhaps cheaper than any other major technology so far. Most of the
investment will be required for salaries, not capital equipment.
Secondly, the person who's probably the most qualified person on earth to
have an opinion about this -- Craig Venter of Human Genome fame -- has
already started this sort of project. His new Institute for Biological
Energy Alternatives is now researching into developing the minimum viable
DNA processing unit (initially for generating hydrogen, he hopes). He
thinks such an entity is going to need about 300 genes. Existing lifeforms
will give clues as to viable substrates and some basic templates will
probably not take more than two, three or four years to develop.
Once some minimum functioning templates have been established, it doesn't
really matter what they produce in the first instance, so long as they are
viable and can be built on. All that's required from then onwards is trial
and error -- simply adding, subtracting, substituting one gene after
another -- to see what results. In nature, during the course of evolution,
this occurred by means of genetic copying errors which only occurred very
rarely -- maybe once every several hundred generations. In the laboratory,
many hundreds of genetic substitutions could be done in the course of a
working day.
Hundreds, thousands, millions and ultimately tens of millions of
combinations will be able to be tried -- according to the priorities of the
company or government concerned and the number of competent laboratory
technicians available. (On both, China is likely to score highly.) This
will not be fundamental science or even development engineering anywhere
near the complexity of, say, new computer processors, but systematic
procedures similar to those that Edison carried out when searching for the
best material for a lamp filament.
Yes, as you say, conventional production methods will be with us for a long
time yet. There won't be any sort of sudden cut-off while oil and natural
gas is cheap and available. However, countries with large desert areas
(though with underground sources of water, such as many areas of the
Sahara) might well be wise to make an early commitment to DNA-production
systems (as Singapore and China have done for associated areas of
cell-cloning and organ replacement research).
Keith
At 10:35 28/10/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Keith, I take your point, but would suggest that the world you envisage is
>so far in the future that even our grandchildren won't see it, and perhaps
>not their grandchildren. Personally, I see metal bashing, brick and board
>bashing, and conventional energy bashing being with us for a long time.
>There are huge vested interests at play in these things. As I noted in my
>previous posting on the subject, I see metal bashing increasingly done in
>the third world (the trend is already there bigtime), brick and board
>bashing, as Christoph Reuss suggests, done by imported (if not immigrant)
>labour, and energy bashing wherever the reserves and markets are. As Naomi
>Klein suggests in "No Logo", the role of the rich world may increasingly be
>to "brand" and market the products of these various bashings, much like
>Nike, Gap, et. al. are already doing with clothing produced in third world
>sweat shops.
>
>Regards, Ed
>
>Ed Weick
>577 Melbourne Ave.
>Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
>Canada
>Phone (613) 728 4630
>Fax (613) 728 9382
>
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> You either misunderstand me or, more probably, I haven't explained myself
>> very well. Yes, we will always need the sorts of objects you've mentioned
>> -- "cars, trucks, tanks, aeroplanes, guns, and girders for tall buildings"
>> -- but we won't necessarily have to make them out of metal, nor use
>> concentrated sources of energy such as the fossil fuels on which we
>> predominantly rely today.
>>
>> So far, ever since man discovered the formation of copper and bronze in
>the
>> embers of his camp fires 5,000 years ago, we have gone along the fairly
>> straightforward and simple route of making more and more objects from
>metal
>> ores, refining them by means of expensive forms of energy and bulk
>methods.
>> (True, plastics have become important in the course of the last century,
>> but these are relatively simple organic products made by rather similar
>> methods of applying concentrated forms of energy.)
>>
>> Instead, sophisticated organic products in the future, quite as strong and
>> versatile as present objects (spider's silk is stronger than steel), will
>> be able to be produced by gentle applications of energy (that is,
>sunlight)
>> via DNA-controlled methods of production. Now there seems to be no reason
>> why the production of objects made by DNA-processes should not be
>> concentrated into specialised regions as now, and traded halfway across
>the
>> world as now, but there seems to be no pressing economic reason either why
>> they should. It seems to me that DNA-controlled production ought to lead
>to
>> a more financially evenly balanced world than now. Any country with a
>> reasonable level of sunlight (that is, anywhere) and of clean water will
>be
>> able (in the longer term future) to make anything at all -- no matter what
>> the metal or energy resources it has or doesn't have.
>>
>> Furthermore, if each region or even each fairly small locality is able to
>> make almost all of its material products in situ then we can hope that a
>> rich diversity of cultures will once again have a chance of surviving
>> instead of the uniform McDonaldisation of today.
>>
>> As for your last comment about the con artists returning at some stage, I
>> agree -- unless we have full disclosure of all communications within
>> business. I've mentioned this in my other posting to Karen ("Or poorer")
>of
>> this morning.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>> At 17:15 27/10/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Keith, interesting stuff. I like the concept of "metal bashing
>industries".
>> >Because we will continue to need cars, trucks, tanks, aeroplanes, guns,
>and
>> >girders for tall buildings for someone to blow up, somebody, somewhere
>will
>> >have to keep bashing metal. It may not be necessary for them to do in
>the
>> >rich world. They can do it in China (unless they get rich) or Mexico
>> >(unless they get rich too). We will also need houses, so we'll have to
>have
>> >"board and brick bashers". I think that will have to be done where we
>live,
>> >so there will still be people who can do things among us. We will also n
>eed
>> >energy - oil, gas and coal for the time being, but surely, if Rifkin is
>> >right, hydrogen at some point (flogisten(sp?) bashers?).
>> >
>> >People in the poor world now make our clothes. Why shouldn't they make
>our
>> >cars and fridges (perhaps, largely, they already do)? What will be left
>for
>> >us? I take your point about education. But at some point the dominant
>way
>> >we think may not be about how we do things, but about what we do next to
>> >keep the bubble going. If we don't make things anymore, how do we keep
>> >ourselves rich, ahead of the pack, so to speak? We've recently been in a
>> >stew about con artists in big business and have gone to some lengths to
>> >purge ourselves of them. But we should not worry, they'll be back.
>> >
>> >Best regards, Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>> --------------
>> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
