Why they built a seed technology for "open source nanotechnology" instead of iterative building on feed lines?

The iterative build seems to be quite simple:

  • Establish healthy community of open feed development. If the seed represent "open source" then it would be logical step. If we are to take analogy from real world than professionals would do it both in their free time as well being paid by company (i.e. company sponsoring such work). I think it was established that access to raw materials is free and the freed access points can be accessed by anybody.
  • Duplication of freed (reverse engineering) should be much simpler then developing new technology from scratch - especially much more advanced. Duplication (even with removing the constrains) should be much simpler.
  • Once we get to this stage it is possible to start decentralizing the system. As the system is in place it is much more economically feasible

At this stage we have all that seed would offer - but instead of having n-year old plan we have system in place in m years (m < n) so it can provide needs for population.

  • I attempted to improve the title, feel free to roll it back or improve it, if it is not to your liking. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 18:30
  • It's better - I'm not quite sure about capitalization but I'm not English native speaker (and rules of it are completely different in my mother's tongue). Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 2:23
  • Yeah, I probably messed it up, I need to go back over to the english stack site and reread that one question. Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 2:24
  • Your version looks better. I don't know what I was thinking, my bad. Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 3:09
  • As mostly titles on SE are capitalized as normal questions I changed the title to blend into them. I think the 'correct' would be "Why Was Seed Being Developed Instead of Iterative Building on an Existing Solution?" Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 3:11

2 Answers 2


The points with the feeds is that they're supported by this massive infrastructure, so while everyone has access, it's access provided at the sufferance of the more powerful. It's why the Vickie's can live in opulent luxury, and everyone else is dealing with basic subsistence.

The idea of the seed is the exact opposite. Instead of putting a design into the feed, and having it assembled for you, you have a self-replicating technology that you can just toss on the ground and it'll make whatever you want. No infrastructure at all.


The seed has various additional benefits, not the least of which is being decentralized. However, your assessment that the feeds are free is incorrect. Some items from the feed are free, but these are somewhat like welfare. Basic, bear-minimum level services like food, warmth, and tools. Other, more ritzy items can be purchased via the feeds as well.

Seed also symbolizes more than just open source. It symbolizes, I think, the beginning of unbounded nanotechnology and possibly the beginning of nanotechnology life.

Also, a book about nerds making a new chair model you can download off the feed would be kind of boring. :P

  • I meant that the raw materials which are put into terminal are free and you pay for a program. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 11:35
  • @Maciej Piechotka: I'm not sure it is ever described which materials are free, or if all are. It is given that, regardless, it is tightly controlled. Which means an open source system on top would likely be illegal.
    – DampeS8N
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 11:50
  • Even if than celestial kingdom would find it easier to reverse engineer this rather then develop on its own. And I meant iterative approach i.e. getting to seed technology by series of intermediate steps. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 12:52
  • @Maciej Piechotka: The infrastructure needed to build a feed system must be gigantic. The cost of the land and permits alone. And even then, the government could just say no.
    – DampeS8N
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 12:56
  • Hmm. I get the impression (maybe wrong) that Celestial Kingdom government secretly fund the seed project (yes that would be problem for CryptNet). Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 15:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.