I didn’t get much out of that essay. Those of us in industrialized nations are living in what should be a post-scarcity today, since there’s more than plenty to meet everyone’s needs. But the self-reinforcing structure of society manufactures scarcity through culture manipulation, something that’s relatively easy when it entails telling people that they “need” more stuff. It doesn’t seem to me that nanotech provides any obvious reason for this to change.
It’s a noble idea though. The ability for mankind to control its destiny in a manner that respects individuals is something that requires individuals to be the true arbiters of control over their environments, which requires (among other things) that the systems affecting individuals be of a nature that individuals can fully comprehend. That is, I can control a fire because I know how to manipulate it, how it works, and where it comes from. When complexity of an environmental element increases, an individual has less ability to control it. My computer is something complex. I would have to devote many months to developing a full understanding of how it works. I am susceptible to viruses, the quality of the manufacturing process, and how well those yahoos at Dell or HP or wherever installed whatever software I had them put on there. With something as complex as environment-harnessing and manipulating nanotech, I am at the complete mercy of the technology and consequently its makers/controllers. The essay admittedly gets a little “Brave New World” at the end, but not nearly enough IMO. Socialism in the future? We cannot even rationally govern ourselves now.