4 ms·

> If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^, then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing technology b

by crusso 14y ago

> If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^, then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing technology become as cheap and elaborate as possible, as quickly as possible. Nah, that's faith-speak. We don't have any idea if this technology will go much further beyond what is currently possible. This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise. While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accomodate it, what suffers? What great technologies and solutions are killed because you (and other true believers) have decided that this is the thing we should all worship and sacrifice everything to achieve? What of our liberties go away because you have a vision? 3D printing is very cool and I see great things coming from it, but it's not Star Trek. It's not Star Wars. It's not the Matrix. It is what it is and we'll see where it goes. In the meantime, my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people. That means respecting some level of Intellectual Property rights in other markets and not just steam-rolling some game-making company because a guy with a 3D printer wants to use this humanity-saving tool to print out some versions of legally trademarked action figures.

Bjartr 14y ago
>This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise. Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this is a weak analogy because the problem with the flying car isn't that it's not technologically possible (it is, relatively trivially these days in fact) the problem is that it's a stupid idea. People have bad enough accidents when dealing with the two dimensions on a road, there's no way to make the technology safe enough to achieve the kind of market penetration the traditional automobile has. Without that the market forces for scaling the infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain such a 'fleet' don't exist. >While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accommodate it, what suffers? Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals. >What great technologies and solutions are killed Those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them under the new system. As opposed to those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them in the existing system. >What of our liberties go away because you have a vision? The ability to make a bet that your creative work will be a success without the danger of someone in a better position to make money from the idea doing so. In fact we are already seeing the beginnings of a return to the modes of commerce prior to intellectual property laws such as an artisan being commissioned ahead of time to produce something by way of tools like Kickstarter which finally attempt to solve the discrepancy between our ability to produce and distribute and our ability to communicate. >my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people My interest is in creating even greater good for even more people. Now, I'm not so arrogant to claim I know these new modes of commerce are better outright, I'm just saying that we don't actually know and we should give them their fair shot. Why should we settle when we could do even better? wow did I get off topic and start ranting or what?
- crusso 14y ago
  > Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals. That's a huge and unfounded assumption, both on where this technology is going and on its impact on society. For the foreseeable future, 3D printing only reshapes raw materials. It doesn't create matter from energy. It doesn't transmute elements. It will allow people with the means to purchase 3D printers and the raw materials the ability to print new forms of those raw materials. It will be really neat to see what people do with them, but it's kind of like saying that Home Depot should have eliminated capitalism since it gave the means of production to many individuals who didn't have it before. Plus, you have to remember that the "means of production" is a moving target since what people need to produce is relative. As the 3D printer is able to create some base consumer goods, people will find new "needs". In Africa, people talk about food as a "need". In Western countries, people talk about access to the Internet as a "need". As some base needs are taken care of through technology, more will open up. There will always be new ways for industrious individuals to satisfy wants and needs through entrepreneurialism.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
polshaw 14y ago
> flying car... Flying cars have always been bogus. Why spend much more energy on hovering a little above the ground, when we already have a well developed land-road network?? And if you want to get from A to B without the road network.. well, we have had flying vehicles to do that for a long time. The fact that, say, a helicopter doesn't meet the criteria for a flying car almost implicitly recognises that travelling along the ground is, at least some times, preferable. As for 3D printing, it is going to have growing pains (anything with moving parts is going to require assembly, at least for the forseeable future), but it will surely go far.
- nooneelse 14y ago
  > (anything with moving parts is going to require assembly, at least for the forseeable future) I don't understand this statement, unless you count brushing/rinsing off, and tapping with a hammer as "assembly" (which is a rather wide definition), then it doesn't seem true. Gears can be printed on their axles and with their teeth already inter-meshed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eojAdYMT0g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eojAdYMT0g. Ball bearings can be printed with the balls inside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h09dTVkdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h09dTVkdw. Hinges can be printed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xr-H4dH71k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xr-H4dH71k. Interlocked chain-mail can be printed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys8v1UqOBl0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys8v1UqOBl0. Using those as elements in larger designs seems to allow for things with moving parts to me.

by crusso 14y ago

Bjartr 14y ago

>This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise. Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this is a weak analogy because the problem with the flying car isn't that it's not technologically possible (it is, relatively trivially these days in fact) the problem is that it's a stupid idea. People have bad enough accidents when dealing with the two dimensions on a road, there's no way to make the technology safe enough to achieve the kind of market penetration the traditional automobile has. Without that the market forces for scaling the infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain such a 'fleet' don't exist. >While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accommodate it, what suffers? Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals. >What great technologies and solutions are killed Those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them under the new system. As opposed to those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them in the existing system. >What of our liberties go away because you have a vision? The ability to make a bet that your creative work will be a success without the danger of someone in a better position to make money from the idea doing so. In fact we are already seeing the beginnings of a return to the modes of commerce prior to intellectual property laws such as an artisan being commissioned ahead of time to produce something by way of tools like Kickstarter which finally attempt to solve the discrepancy between our ability to produce and distribute and our ability to communicate. >my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people My interest is in creating even greater good for even more people. Now, I'm not so arrogant to claim I know these new modes of commerce are better outright, I'm just saying that we don't actually know and we should give them their fair shot. Why should we settle when we could do even better? wow did I get off topic and start ranting or what?

crusso 14y ago
> Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals. That's a huge and unfounded assumption, both on where this technology is going and on its impact on society. For the foreseeable future, 3D printing only reshapes raw materials. It doesn't create matter from energy. It doesn't transmute elements. It will allow people with the means to purchase 3D printers and the raw materials the ability to print new forms of those raw materials. It will be really neat to see what people do with them, but it's kind of like saying that Home Depot should have eliminated capitalism since it gave the means of production to many individuals who didn't have it before. Plus, you have to remember that the "means of production" is a moving target since what people need to produce is relative. As the 3D printer is able to create some base consumer goods, people will find new "needs". In Africa, people talk about food as a "need". In Western countries, people talk about access to the Internet as a "need". As some base needs are taken care of through technology, more will open up. There will always be new ways for industrious individuals to satisfy wants and needs through entrepreneurialism.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

polshaw 14y ago

> flying car... Flying cars have always been bogus. Why spend much more energy on hovering a little above the ground, when we already have a well developed land-road network?? And if you want to get from A to B without the road network.. well, we have had flying vehicles to do that for a long time. The fact that, say, a helicopter doesn't meet the criteria for a flying car almost implicitly recognises that travelling along the ground is, at least some times, preferable. As for 3D printing, it is going to have growing pains (anything with moving parts is going to require assembly, at least for the forseeable future), but it will surely go far.

nooneelse 14y ago
> (anything with moving parts is going to require assembly, at least for the forseeable future) I don't understand this statement, unless you count brushing/rinsing off, and tapping with a hammer as "assembly" (which is a rather wide definition), then it doesn't seem true. Gears can be printed on their axles and with their teeth already inter-meshed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eojAdYMT0g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eojAdYMT0g. Ball bearings can be printed with the balls inside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h09dTVkdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h09dTVkdw. Hinges can be printed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xr-H4dH71k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xr-H4dH71k. Interlocked chain-mail can be printed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys8v1UqOBl0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys8v1UqOBl0. Using those as elements in larger designs seems to allow for things with moving parts to me.