3 ms·

Interesting comment! I have this relatively unconventional theory that, if we use automation just right and make the cost of food production, delivery, and pre

Interesting comment! I have this relatively unconventional theory that, if we use automation just right and make the cost of food production, delivery, and preparation low enough, and also do so where ownership of the machinery is distributed throughout society, that we could make it a social norm to give anyone who needs it free food. All in a voluntary system. We just need to make the actual cost of the whole supply chain low enough that people don't care about giving away a bit for free. Like in the extreme case how cafes give out free wifi because the marginal cost of delivering wifi to one more person is so low. I could imagine shops having a "free food" option made using some low cost proteins and fiber and prepared using some cheap robot. And then they would charge for hand made food or something, using the free food as a loss leader. So my theory is that those robots need to be made as cheaply as possible. And that makes me think they need to be open source so anyone capable of manufacturing them can compete to supply them. Like how 3D printers got so cheap once the patents expired. They went from $30k to $300 in 20 years. The real trick is sustaining robotics businesses that can pay engineering talent to produce open source robotics. Prusa Research has succeeded here with their 3D printers, and I am hoping I am able to reproduce that success with the farming robot I am working on now. But we aren't certain we will make it open source. It depends on how we can sustain funding. I think it's very possible though and I'm committed to it. I think it's extremely interesting that Prusa Research can give all of their IP away and coexist in the market with clones at less than 1/2 the price. Users understand that the first party product is higher quality, and those that can afford it still buy from Prusa. There seems to be room in that market for both Prusa and the many clones. I wonder if we can reproduce this success with automation in other areas.

eaenki 7y ago
That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. Not only it shows a complete lack of understanding about agriculture (e.g a cheeseburger sells $1 but just the water would cost more than that if not subsidized -> which leads to water waste which is scarce) but just think about it... agriculture itself is the original sin of humanity, which lead to the few great things that humanity built but also to the destruction of this planet and everything else And you’d just accelerate that
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  My robot will, if we succeed, make it much cheaper to do organic agriculture. This would reduce our reliance on herbicides. Long term I hope we can automate more biointensive agriculture that uses complementary plants to ward off pests. If you truly feel that agriculture is an "original sin" then we need to fix that. Because we can't stop making food. We can only make food production more environmentally friendly.
- piva00 7y ago
  Not if it was an intensive kind of agriculture, something similar to Dutch glasshouses but in a much more sustainable and advanced level. Don't constrain your imagination to the current reality...
derekp7 7y ago
So kind of like how a bar has a bowl of nuts or pretzels out for free. Or, at work, I bought a pastry from the cafeteria. About 5 minutes later they put out a whole platter of the same pastries in the dining area for free (they didn't sell, and would be dumped otherwise).
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Kind of!
travisjungroth 7y ago
It’ll be much like water in most of the world: free on a personal scale.
yoshyosh 7y ago
Pretty cool concept you should write more about this. Do you have any other examples of companies that give away their IP but still thrive in the physical or digital world? Will definitely check out Prusa Research. I've always wondered if a restaurant could be built upon a similar concept, teaching people how to recreate it's foods but being so cheap and accessible that the cost of creating it yourself outweighs just buying it.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Thank you! Yes actually Sparkfun Electronics was the first company I noticed that followed this pattern. They are essentially a hardware company that gives most or all of their product's IP away. I remember this blog post made it very clear that very open source hardware companies could thrive: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/599 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/599 The internal side of their business is was built on open source software, which is a good example of what can come from open source ecosystems: https://opensource.com/business/12/9/how-sparkfun-built-open-business https://opensource.com/business/12/9/how-sparkfun-built-open... This post of 15 years of operation shows where their value add is: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/2571 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/2571 They do a lot of hard work that isn't in their product's IP. Just bringing physical matter together is hard and essentially that's what they get paid for. The similar company Adafruit I believe does not always open source their products, though they do produce a lot of open guides and open source code. It would be interesting to understand what led them to keep some products partially proprietary (they'd share schematics but not board files sometimes). I wonder if cheap office space in Colorado vs a warehouse in NYC caused the differences. Also all of the companies that make 3D printers are part of this. The Chinese companies which sell clones are important innovators in the field. Prusa and Creality are perhaps in some ways like Apple and Samsung - they feed off one another. They do not merely clone the prusa - none of the big companies sell an exact clone of the MK3 for example - they instead make the design work for their factory. Prusa relies on lots of 3D printed parts because the best factory for them is a print farm of their machines. But in China they may prefer sheet metal bending and injection molding. Since the design has few restrictions, whichever hardware company that can make a functioning product cheapest will succeed in a normal market. AKA open sourcing has some automatic cost reducing effect. So if we open source a bunch of technology related to meeting core human needs, then the cost of keeping people alive will go down. Then you need a means of distributing that technology throughout the world. And again open source allows free movement of product around the world - no regional restrictions or limited supply chains. The takeaway for all of us is - the future can be good, go work on some useful open source stuff and lets all keep researching how best to fund it. So this whole theory is like "OMG we're doing everything backwards" and I definitely want to write about it more. I just find personal engineering projects to draw my attention more than writing. I need a Walden Pond.

eaenki 7y ago

That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. Not only it shows a complete lack of understanding about agriculture (e.g a cheeseburger sells $1 but just the water would cost more than that if not subsidized -> which leads to water waste which is scarce) but just think about it... agriculture itself is the original sin of humanity, which lead to the few great things that humanity built but also to the destruction of this planet and everything else And you’d just accelerate that

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
My robot will, if we succeed, make it much cheaper to do organic agriculture. This would reduce our reliance on herbicides. Long term I hope we can automate more biointensive agriculture that uses complementary plants to ward off pests. If you truly feel that agriculture is an "original sin" then we need to fix that. Because we can't stop making food. We can only make food production more environmentally friendly.
piva00 7y ago
Not if it was an intensive kind of agriculture, something similar to Dutch glasshouses but in a much more sustainable and advanced level. Don't constrain your imagination to the current reality...

derekp7 7y ago

So kind of like how a bar has a bowl of nuts or pretzels out for free. Or, at work, I bought a pastry from the cafeteria. About 5 minutes later they put out a whole platter of the same pastries in the dining area for free (they didn't sell, and would be dumped otherwise).

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Kind of!

travisjungroth 7y ago

It’ll be much like water in most of the world: free on a personal scale.

yoshyosh 7y ago

Pretty cool concept you should write more about this. Do you have any other examples of companies that give away their IP but still thrive in the physical or digital world? Will definitely check out Prusa Research. I've always wondered if a restaurant could be built upon a similar concept, teaching people how to recreate it's foods but being so cheap and accessible that the cost of creating it yourself outweighs just buying it.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Thank you! Yes actually Sparkfun Electronics was the first company I noticed that followed this pattern. They are essentially a hardware company that gives most or all of their product's IP away. I remember this blog post made it very clear that very open source hardware companies could thrive: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/599 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/599 The internal side of their business is was built on open source software, which is a good example of what can come from open source ecosystems: https://opensource.com/business/12/9/how-sparkfun-built-open-business https://opensource.com/business/12/9/how-sparkfun-built-open... This post of 15 years of operation shows where their value add is: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/2571 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/2571 They do a lot of hard work that isn't in their product's IP. Just bringing physical matter together is hard and essentially that's what they get paid for. The similar company Adafruit I believe does not always open source their products, though they do produce a lot of open guides and open source code. It would be interesting to understand what led them to keep some products partially proprietary (they'd share schematics but not board files sometimes). I wonder if cheap office space in Colorado vs a warehouse in NYC caused the differences. Also all of the companies that make 3D printers are part of this. The Chinese companies which sell clones are important innovators in the field. Prusa and Creality are perhaps in some ways like Apple and Samsung - they feed off one another. They do not merely clone the prusa - none of the big companies sell an exact clone of the MK3 for example - they instead make the design work for their factory. Prusa relies on lots of 3D printed parts because the best factory for them is a print farm of their machines. But in China they may prefer sheet metal bending and injection molding. Since the design has few restrictions, whichever hardware company that can make a functioning product cheapest will succeed in a normal market. AKA open sourcing has some automatic cost reducing effect. So if we open source a bunch of technology related to meeting core human needs, then the cost of keeping people alive will go down. Then you need a means of distributing that technology throughout the world. And again open source allows free movement of product around the world - no regional restrictions or limited supply chains. The takeaway for all of us is - the future can be good, go work on some useful open source stuff and lets all keep researching how best to fund it. So this whole theory is like "OMG we're doing everything backwards" and I definitely want to write about it more. I just find personal engineering projects to draw my attention more than writing. I need a Walden Pond.