4 ms·

The machine already exists, it's called Shenzhen. The humans live in the machine though. You've taken normal human commerce, removed some parts and called it

The machine already exists, it's called Shenzhen. The humans live in the machine though. You've taken normal human commerce, removed some parts and called it "the machine" I don't see the value. The questions of labor and capital distribution have been debated in depth and well for thousands of years, I don't see the value of this abstraction. We already have the machines you describe, they just require humans in them doing the work.

wishinghand 10y ago
The value is getting the humans out of the machine, for the most part. And from turning it from an abstraction to reality.
- RichardHeart 10y ago
  I see that you're focused on mechatronics, so you may well be able to build machines that replace humans at tasks, that's awesome. I think a more automated future has already displaced a decent amnt of the work force, to see in real time what happens, and I think the consensus is that human labor displacement will continue. Thus there's no reason for the abstract thought experiment, for the reality that we live in is already the one you're trying to simulate. Since I'm made of meat, I'd prefer you work on machines that can repair meat, perhaps since so many discoveries are made by accident, you could accelerate the rate accidents occur. I know some companies use giant mix and match machines to just try things and see what works. I'm ok with working in the factory while some other machine is figuring out how to save my life. I prefer that to having my life not saved, but getting to chill out and watch from a hammock on a hill the machines do my old job.
  - wishinghand 10y ago
    Actually, what I'd really like to be focused on is the availability of the mechanism. The open-source, self-powered, free model is key to this being a true success, rather than just decentralizing factories but requiring that we all still work in order to gain their output.
    - RichardHeart 10y ago
      That's not accurate. The vast and overwhelming majority of all the good things we have now is not the result of open-source or self-powered or free. It is likely the case that for it to be a true success, it needs to be the opposite of free. Just like nearly every other cool thing that exists. You know, like rocket ships. It seems like you want to solve a political/social problem, with a machine. You'll find out what the inventors of all other machines found out. They will be used for good, they will be used for evil, and the human politics matter much more than the tool.
      - wishinghand 10y ago
        > it needs to be the opposite of free It doesn't need to be. And it won't be at first, but hopefully it can propagate in such a way that it can be. Also rocket ships is a straw man because they couldn't (and currently can't) be free. > They will be used for good, they will be used for evil I agree with you here, so education and peaceful culture will be key. Also a rapidly propagating cheap/free Machine so that it can start delivering the needs of those who might otherwise be drawn into malign ideologies based on inequality.
kpil 10y ago
The very idea that it's irrelevant what's on the other side of a shipping line is both a powerful abstraction in economical theory, but in real life an almost perverse ethical dilemma. It's easy to construct a thought experiment where you fill a container with dollar bills and receive another container filled with goods, and calculate that the maximum efficiency i.e. profit involves starving respectively working people to death in both ends of the shipping line.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
The key distinction between Shezhen and The Machine is that a group of people cannot buy Shezhen. Something changes when you one something versus paying for its output. For example that's why car ownership and car rental have such different places in our lives. If you could own your survival, would you prefer to keep renting it?

wishinghand 10y ago

The value is getting the humans out of the machine, for the most part. And from turning it from an abstraction to reality.

RichardHeart 10y ago
I see that you're focused on mechatronics, so you may well be able to build machines that replace humans at tasks, that's awesome. I think a more automated future has already displaced a decent amnt of the work force, to see in real time what happens, and I think the consensus is that human labor displacement will continue. Thus there's no reason for the abstract thought experiment, for the reality that we live in is already the one you're trying to simulate. Since I'm made of meat, I'd prefer you work on machines that can repair meat, perhaps since so many discoveries are made by accident, you could accelerate the rate accidents occur. I know some companies use giant mix and match machines to just try things and see what works. I'm ok with working in the factory while some other machine is figuring out how to save my life. I prefer that to having my life not saved, but getting to chill out and watch from a hammock on a hill the machines do my old job.
- wishinghand 10y ago
  Actually, what I'd really like to be focused on is the availability of the mechanism. The open-source, self-powered, free model is key to this being a true success, rather than just decentralizing factories but requiring that we all still work in order to gain their output.
  - RichardHeart 10y ago
    That's not accurate. The vast and overwhelming majority of all the good things we have now is not the result of open-source or self-powered or free. It is likely the case that for it to be a true success, it needs to be the opposite of free. Just like nearly every other cool thing that exists. You know, like rocket ships. It seems like you want to solve a political/social problem, with a machine. You'll find out what the inventors of all other machines found out. They will be used for good, they will be used for evil, and the human politics matter much more than the tool.
    - wishinghand 10y ago
      > it needs to be the opposite of free It doesn't need to be. And it won't be at first, but hopefully it can propagate in such a way that it can be. Also rocket ships is a straw man because they couldn't (and currently can't) be free. > They will be used for good, they will be used for evil I agree with you here, so education and peaceful culture will be key. Also a rapidly propagating cheap/free Machine so that it can start delivering the needs of those who might otherwise be drawn into malign ideologies based on inequality.

kpil 10y ago

The very idea that it's irrelevant what's on the other side of a shipping line is both a powerful abstraction in economical theory, but in real life an almost perverse ethical dilemma. It's easy to construct a thought experiment where you fill a container with dollar bills and receive another container filled with goods, and calculate that the maximum efficiency i.e. profit involves starving respectively working people to death in both ends of the shipping line.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

The key distinction between Shezhen and The Machine is that a group of people cannot buy Shezhen. Something changes when you one something versus paying for its output. For example that's why car ownership and car rental have such different places in our lives. If you could own your survival, would you prefer to keep renting it?