3 ms·

I question your assertion. It seems like providing a "roof and bed" is actually a solved problem in terms of manufacturing. I say manufacturing specifically bec

I question your assertion. It seems like providing a "roof and bed" is actually a solved problem in terms of manufacturing. I say manufacturing specifically because you bring up 3D printed homes. The problems with housing supply are due to social externalities rather than lack of innovation. "When the government or whoever comes in and provides these things, they become the world ruler." I also challenge this because governments have tried to provide nearly free housing, food, water, and even direct payments from the government. But these efforts have not worked as well as hoped and the idea has not swept the world into a new paradigm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>I question your assertion. It seems like providing a "roof and bed" is actually a solved problem in terms of manufacturing. I say manufacturing specifically because you bring up 3D printed homes. The problems with housing supply are due to social externalities rather than lack of innovation. I think I understand what you're saying. You're right in that sense, but in the sense/context of the tech revolution. We're talking about FREE or less than free. About covering the maslows needs to allow things to happen. We can't do that with current systems like modular homes or anything that takes human involvement in setup. Robots on the otherhand can build 3d printed homes in a fully automated manner. At least theoretically. >I also challenge this because governments have tried to provide nearly free housing, food, water, and even direct payments from the government. But these efforts have not worked as well as hoped and the idea has not swept the world into a new paradigm. The government has provided 'highly costly housing in very short terms' in so displacing the function of very lean charities at tax payer cost. That's why it doesn't work well. Communism failed in 1989 proving it's not a true net-positive relationship. The idea that we might be able to make it net-positive using automation and computers. Effectively by using the gulags of robots. China could free their uyghyur slaves and laogai. Vietnam could free their slaves. North Korea could free their kwalliso slaves. It's not just the communist countries which have government owned slaves in forced labour camps. Places like Japan have penal labour. You are forced to work to produce goods for very cheap to sell to Japanese companies. The Japanese penal slaves are what is keeping Japan from debt collapse. Did you know if you're accused of a crime it's 99.9% you're going to prison for a period much longer than most places in the world. >Pruitt–Igoe Communism has many examples of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka This is a symptom of large government. Greece and Venezuela has lots of these as well. The exact opposite of what I am proposing. The tech revolution has the ability to come in and be successful where communism failed. 100% of the objective is to not have humans involved.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>I question your assertion. It seems like providing a "roof and bed" is actually a solved problem in terms of manufacturing. I say manufacturing specifically because you bring up 3D printed homes. The problems with housing supply are due to social externalities rather than lack of innovation. I think I understand what you're saying. You're right in that sense, but in the sense/context of the tech revolution. We're talking about FREE or less than free. About covering the maslows needs to allow things to happen. We can't do that with current systems like modular homes or anything that takes human involvement in setup. Robots on the otherhand can build 3d printed homes in a fully automated manner. At least theoretically. >I also challenge this because governments have tried to provide nearly free housing, food, water, and even direct payments from the government. But these efforts have not worked as well as hoped and the idea has not swept the world into a new paradigm. The government has provided 'highly costly housing in very short terms' in so displacing the function of very lean charities at tax payer cost. That's why it doesn't work well. Communism failed in 1989 proving it's not a true net-positive relationship. The idea that we might be able to make it net-positive using automation and computers. Effectively by using the gulags of robots. China could free their uyghyur slaves and laogai. Vietnam could free their slaves. North Korea could free their kwalliso slaves. It's not just the communist countries which have government owned slaves in forced labour camps. Places like Japan have penal labour. You are forced to work to produce goods for very cheap to sell to Japanese companies. The Japanese penal slaves are what is keeping Japan from debt collapse. Did you know if you're accused of a crime it's 99.9% you're going to prison for a period much longer than most places in the world. >Pruitt–Igoe Communism has many examples of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka This is a symptom of large government. Greece and Venezuela has lots of these as well. The exact opposite of what I am proposing. The tech revolution has the ability to come in and be successful where communism failed. 100% of the objective is to not have humans involved.