Brad DeLong has an interesting post speculating about the likely economic and social impacts of nanotechnology. He frames his argument relative to past technological revolutions such as the industrial revolution in U.K. and the current information revolution and then speculates:

Now, assuming it is a useful framework, how would it guide our thinking about nanotechnology? What's going to become absurdly cheap? What human activities are going to turn out to be bottlenecks, and become well-rewarded indeed? What risks are we failing to guard against? What risks that aren't really there will wind up warping our society? And how big will it be? The computer-and-communications technology revolution we have been living through transforms twice as large a share of the economy as did the British Industrial Revolution, looks to last three times as long, and proceeds at a pace three times faster than the revolution in spinning and weaving: it is, relative to the size of the economy, eighteen times a bigger deal than the original. Will nanotechnology be a set of tightly-focused technologies revolutionizing small discrete sectors of the economy, or will it be broad and long-lasting?

DeLong's provisional answers to his questions are interesting and insightful but what interests me most is his view, commonly held, that humans need education.

If information technology caused a sharp upward leap in the skill- and education requirements of the labor force that has caused a large chunk of our upward leap in income inequality, is not nanotechnology likely to do the same? And is not the pace of economic growth--the spread and use of nanotechnology-generated materials--likely to be constrained by a shortage of the highly educated and skilled materials technicians and programmers that we will need?

The skill and education of the work force has declined in many ways since the industrial revolution. People are less competent, and competent in fewer areas, than during most of human history. Life is far easier, people study less and work less. Things are automated, ready-made, provided by specialists. People can drift through life without a clue about how things work or where things come from. They pay more attention to entertainment and social relations to fill the empty hours of their lives.

People are far less well educated today than ever, but the education they have is different than before. I think it is useful to grasp that there really wasn't a "sharp upward leap in the skill- and education requirements of the labor force" with either of the cited technical revolutions. There was change in the skills required but the total amount of skill and training seems to have declined. It seems that this is the pattern that will repeat with the nanotech revolution. Life will get easier and humans won't need to know as much to live well. The things they need to know will change, old skills and knowledge will no longer have much value, but it isn't an increase in skill or training that is needed. Training methods will improve too so that the reduced amount of skill will also be easier to acquire.

There will be no skills gap or shortage. There will be disruption and disappointment as existing skills are made redundant or obsolete. Lives will be ruined. This is what we need to manage. Same old, same old problem of how to ease the social consequences of technical change when humans don't have the grace to die in their thirties anymore.