3D Printers vs. Patents

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 6 months ago to Technology
74 comments | Share | Flag

Ok...so lets look 50 years ahead or even further into the future: What happens when everyone has the ability to produce what ever one needs, wants or can just dream up? How will we attain the resources to print these things...how will we earn the value needed to attain property to live on.

I do see a time, far off into our future, if we in fact survive that long, where we can create or print the resources we need to print what we need...but even 100 or 1000 years from now this idea might very well still be science fiction.

So how to we solve the basic problem? Do we trade the process, designs or schematics for the resources we need?
Sure, we can recycle much of what we have to create new things, even food, but at some point, we'll need more materials.
SOURCE URL: http://www.garynorth.com/public/15654.cfm


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 6 months ago
    It seems to be a hard concept for many to grasp, but in fact no resource is ever consumed in the sense of entirely vanishing. What we think of as consumption is an act of transformation, so nearly everything is recyclable, able to be transformed into its original state, or into another form for a different use.

    When resources are considered scarce, it's a matter of inadequate transformative technology. In spite of all the worry about overpopulation, the planet still has resources more than adequate for billions more humans at a high standard of living, so long as we can continue to improve our ability to manage those resources.

    It certainly makes sense to acquire more resources for expansion off planet, and there is no lack of resources to serve that purpose. Asteroids present trillions of tons of new material, and any inhabitable planetary surface (Moon, Mars, so far) has its own vast resource bounty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
      Actually Zarkov, one does consume energy, and have to deal with ever-increasing entropy. The resources one would still need, even with infinite transformative ability (base matter into any kind of matter you could ask for), would involve concentrations of energy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 6 months ago
        That goes without saying. What I was addressing is the fiction so commonly promoted is that we "run out of stuff." For example, water "shortages" are local, and a matter of reclamation and distribution, since without large scale evaporation off planet, the amount of water on Earth is the same as it's been for eons.

        Energy resources are abundant, and entropy as an existential concern will be unimportant for beyond the life of our sun.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Enyway 7 years, 6 months ago
      The one thing that really bugged me was "plastic or paper." Of course, the "Save the earth" people said "save the trees, use plastic." I have been given to understand that oil is an ingredient of plastic. So, I challenge the tree huggers, I can grow another tree; can you grow another dinosaur? There is a finite amount of oil. When it's gone, it's gone.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
        Not necessarily true...oil may be a renewable resource...only time will tell if this is true.
        What the paper/plastic creature don't get is that paper is easily recyclable, doesn't take as much energy to produce, is a natural product that degrades well and cleans up the forests also...(something BLM has no clue about). Plastic doesn't degrade very well, not to mention all the problems it may cause. These creatures also don't get is the Ox-day/CO2-night of trees and plants is practically a wash in terms of benefit to the earths atmosphere, depending upon the amount of day light versus night.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Enyway 7 years, 6 months ago
          All the more reason to stop wasting resources on plastic that is just going in the landfill. Also, could you elaborate on the Ox-day/CO2. I think it has something to do with oxygen and carbon dioxide. Plants inhale(for want of another word) CO2 and exhale OX. And we stand around like vultures waiting for the oxygen while breathing on the plants.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
            As you know plants take in CO2 during day time and expel Oxygen. They do the opposite at night. Given equal amounts of day/night times makes it a wash in terms of oxygen or carbon dioxide production.
            The left and environ[mental]ist are always screaming about cutting down trees and reducing the amount of oxygen to breath.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Enyway 7 years, 6 months ago
              I did not know that. I assumed plants always produced oxygen. Now that I think of it, I should have known. Photosynthesis requires light. I still would not have thought the process reversed itself at night. Can there be too much oxygen?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
                I would imagine so. Most of our atmosphere is Nitrogen. Makes one appreciate the moderating features of earth...it's a system that seems to be always balancing itself out.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 6 months ago
            You have it right. Plant Kingdom are CO2 in Oxy out. Animals Kingdom the opposite. What it started out to be about was holes in the ozone layer as the only legitimate problem I've ever heard about. Prevalent in NZ and OZ. Used to be part of General Science in the 8th or 9th Grades and preceded Biology, Chemistry and Physics. i don't know what they teach these days. In FFA Future Farmers of America there was training on cycles such as plant life animal life, basic nutrients, fertilizers and sources, also weather. I imagine now they just 'look it up on the internet.'
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 7 years, 6 months ago
    I have done modestly well by buying my current home and my previous house from the 'white elephant' discard heap. What I could bring to the table that other people could not is 'imagination'. I think that this applies to the future of 3D printers.

    Having the capability to create things (let us assume the Star Trek 'replicator' level of capability of printers that Temaklos specifies) does not magically endow 95% of humanity with the imagination or inclination to create their own products. What you 'sell' is your ability to imagine a product that other people would like - like selling a book: The book contains letters and words that are in the common domain, but it has proprietary plots and characters that are copyrighted.

    Anyone can stroll up to a replicator and say, "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." but if you want the unit to reproduce a new gourmet dish, you buy the right to that recipe from the chef who created it. Similarly, you can order your shipsuit for free, but if you like the latest fashion that the actress wore on the Holovid, you buy the design from the studio.

    What 3D printers add to physical society is what we are currently experiencing with information technology and news: the dissolution of gatekeepers. It used to be that the news you heard/saw/read was filtered through a few major 'gates' - now we have people posting their videos directly on the Net and there is nothing that social censors can do to stop them.

    I am looking forward to an increase in the sophistication of 3D printers that allows me to be free from the fetters of 'what people in Paris tell me I am supposed to want'. I can do a much better job imagining my world than they can. And if other people like my ideas, I will be glad to sell them to those people.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 7 years, 6 months ago
    There is a significant amount of time and energy to either find & obtain or create the exact specifications for parts to produce with a 3D printer, assuming of course you can make the part out of plastic. Metals fabrication in the similar approach would be CNC or water jet machines and cost $10s of thousands of dollars, and given the 'horsepower' to operate either, its not likely to be tiny or particularly common in the home, well, forever.

    Most of the economy doesn't have anything to do with manufacturing, its probably 10% at best domestically, its not ever going to be more than 10 or 20% of the economy. Most of the population makes its living in the service sector.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 6 months ago
    So far, you need to have the item in order to copy it. But, as to looking into the future, it is always a toss up. Who knows what the next big scientific breakthrough will be? In the 50's, we predicted a Mars colony by 2016, flying cars, complete nutrition by just swallowing a pill. Computers? Well, maybe in the universities, but what use are they to most people? Hah!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gpecaut 7 years, 6 months ago
    Actually the 3D printer, even today, is not really a problem, patent wise. Nor will it be much of a problem in at least the near future. No one is going to dent any production product with 3D printing. The cost is too high, and the production rate way too slow. However, 3D printers, and CAD programs will let small tech companies and individuals compete better with large producers. They allow one to bring an idea/invention to fruition. This has not been possible without a fairly large expenditure before. They could well be the key to a new wave of invention.
    Still, any "printed" item, would be mass produced by more conventional means post testing and acceptance of it's final version.
    As for 3D printing displacing industry, I fear it will never be cheaper to print a part, then to mass produce it. There are times it may be worth the cost. Replacement parts that are no longer made! But even then, rather than trying to recreate the part, most would be more than happy to pay a small fee for the print file from the OEM.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 6 months ago
    i like your qualifier.."50 years...if we survive that long..."...that is the question...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
      We have a lot of dangerous ground to cover yet in which morality, ethics and an understanding of what is human must be considered.

      There must be somethings that humans should not engage until ready and others we should never engage, otherwise, with unlimited resources at our disposal it might change the way we value life. see: the R/K selection theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3F...

      Just a thought...I think it should be part of the conversation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 6 months ago
    While 3D printers are really cool, they are expensive - not just to build, but to operate. My son has one and they are finicky and the rolls of plastic aren't cheap. You can get the same thing down at the dollar store that costs 30x that much and nearly a day to 3D print.

    I really don't see everything moving to individual printing because mass manufacturing is so efficient and there just isn't a huge need for customized everything in our lives. Right now, the printers inexpensive enough for anyone to own are limited to printing knick-knacks out of plastic. They're great for role-playing games and hobbies, but they don't have the strength needed for many applications. And it isn't like these things can design the circuits necessary for many appliances and such either.

    I'm not really worried about this in the next 50 years barring a massive breakthrough in the affordability and availability of large-format printers which can accept a wide variety of input materials - including metals. That's still a long ways away.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
    The entertainment industry has already produced a dramatic "arc" illustrating just the kind of future Gary North is afraid of. And with good reason. And the name of the franchise involved? Star Trek. In the later period those shows covered, "replicators" were the thing. A "replicator" would be no larger than a microwave oven--or one of those additive factories we call "3D printers" today. You would walk up to one and say, "I want a ham sandwich," and more quickly than you could say the command, you'd get it. You could even ask for a glass of water and specify the temperature.

    So what's an inventor to do? Well, I'll tell you what I found objectionable about Star Trek. Those people had no currency. And replicators--from the 3D printer size to the big industrial-sized replicators that produced building materials and such--could literally produce anything on command, even by rearranging matter, energy, and any and all pure substances and mixtures.

    I concluded that all inventors worked for the state--be it the United Nations on Earth, its equivalent on another world, or the Federation as a whole. The best inventors worked for Star Fleet and got the best laboratories, the best staff, the best equipment, the best commissaries, the best everything. The inventor working out of his garage? Nothing. No one said a word.

    How would you solve the basic problem? Only one way. The inventor would have to sell his idea outright to whatever authority, or whatever company, programmed replicators worldwide. A big, fat lump sum would place that invention into the public domain. Permanently.

    And resources? Well, in that looked-for universe, very few things would be non-replicable. The form of platinum, or "latinum," that remained liquid at room temperature would be one. This formed the basis of the Ferengi economy. Which in fact was a travesty of capitalism.

    But I have an idea that the end of the franchise left the Federation in bad shape. Just bad enough for a revolution to take place. After fighting the longest, costliest, and bloodiest war in its history, surely the Federation would stagger under a mountain of debt--hidden debt, given the lack of currency, but debt is still debt. Whereas frontier societies would be free and clear--and might even want to get away from replicators, for health reasons. Sooner or later the Federation would impose Townshend-like Acts on its colonies in some of the new frontier areas. And that would eventually provoke repeats of the Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Lexington and Concord. And if the Federation still disrespected its inventors as I saw it doing (by watching literally every Star Trek episode of every show that aired), those inventors might join the rebel side. Then watch out!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
      The "no money" thing was an artifact of Roddenberry-as-socialist, one which was later back-handedly walked back even before the appearance of the Ferengi. I see to recall Kirk talking about money being spent - and commenting on a crew member earning his pay for the week; not to mention the famous Trouble with Tribbles episode where he talked about it.


      Now, there was a post-federation story which was retold as "Andromeda" (Commonwealth == Federation of Planets), though I forget why it was taken out of the ST universe - probably CBS.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
        True enough--in the original series. But in The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine and Enterprise and especially in the motion picture First Contact, the characters explicitly declared humans formed something they called The New Economy. In that economy, money did not exist.

        The Ferengi, with their non-replicable substance that became their currency, stood in stark contrast to the Federation and especially human society. That society was one of pure communism. And by "pure" I here mean not one character ever mentioned any nomenklatura (Francisco's Aristocracy of Pull) nor any George Soros type manipulating the political and economic system behind the scenes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
          Yep, i t was a result of the extension and tug-of-war between Roddenberry and the writers. Roddenberry kept insisting there was no currency of any kind, but the writers kept inserting it. It is one of the most inconsistent bits in the entire setting. For example, in DS9 Sisko threatened Quark on an occasion or two with things like collecting back-rent from him as leverage to get him to do stuff as well as mentioning Quark would have to/did pay for repairs. There are also references to Starfleet credits, hinting that "money" is gone but currency is not - despite Roddenberry's insistence.

          The basic notion that they could not just replicate anything is also belied by the construction of star ships, and that in many cases they can't replicate parts for their own ship. There are many holes in the dictum and there are surely many more people writing abut how it all makes sense when the reality is that it doesn't because G.R. never had a consistent method or option. He just insisted n his personal belief that money in any form doesn't exists. I've read a few essays that try to explain away the many references to a form of currency and most wind up trying really hard to explain that it using something to decide how to allocate resources even in a world of replicators is not the same thing as currency. Yet in each of the series and in some of the movies there is very clearly private property. Once you allow for private property to exist you can not escape currency or barter.

          Roddenberry's insistence on "no money", and his apologists for it are basing the entire setup in the irrational belief that if we could replicate "anything and everything" you need that magically the human race instead works "to better humanity". The socioeconomic and political aspects of the Star Trek Universe's Federation are logically impossible to reconcile, and for the same reasons the underlying philosophies of Roddenberry are impossible to reconcile - they reject actual, objective reality and substitute their own inconsistent and ineffectual one. This is why when it comes to claims of "post-scarcity", I prefer The Diamond Age to ST.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
            The Diamond Age? Never heard of that. Tell me more.

            As to the rest: that's why I started writing my own outline for a series, that picks up 17 years after the end of the Dominion War (and 15 years after the return of Voyager), in which the American Revolutionary scenario plays out on a galactic scale. It begins with clear signs that the Federation economy is showing its weaknesses. Weaknesses the PTB's kept well-hidden. And it ends with the fall of the hidden Federation power structure, and with some Nuremburg-style trials.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
              The Diamond Age is a Neil Stephenson book set in future Earth (arguably about a century after Snowcrash) in which we have full-control nanotechnology. Which means we have "replicators". But rather than assuming human nature fundamentally changes, it goes into the more gritty reality. It mostly centers around an unauthorized copy of a "Primer" - an adaptive book aimed at teaching a child about life and how to be a good person. It highlights some of the effects of being able to replicate your basic needs and doesn't really spare the downsides.

              Damn, now I want to reread it again. ;)

              If you haven't seen the first season of Andromeda, or even the first couple episodes it sounds similar - there is a revolution and the "Commonwealth" collapsed. Then it jumps a thousand years or so (its been quite a while since I last watched it, so bear with me please) to where you get "Hercules in Space". Of course, the races are different, and the technology is as well, but you can see the original types. Now, the ST<->Andromeda tie-in may well be apocryphal. I recall at the time it was launched that it was described that way, but of course sources are nearly impossible to find nowadays. Roddenberry had floated the basic idea several times in different ways, so it being an alternate of the STU is conceivable, as is it merely being another idea he had that just didn't get traction. However, I did find watching it with the notion of it being an alternate post-federation series an entertaining one.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
                Yes, I remember Gene Roddenberry's Genesis II pilot, that failed completely. His premise: a NASA scientist wakes up after an experiment in suspended animation. He's supposed to be out for a week. But an earthquake buries the lab, and him in it. 154 years later, a team of human refugees (for lack of a better term) uncover him, find him alive, and wake him up. Wake him up to a world trying to recover from a nuclear war. A world split between traditional humans on one side, and mutant super-humans, or Tyrannians, on the other.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
                  Wow, there is so much Idiocracy plot in that premise. :D
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
                    I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'll hazard a guess. In crafting Genesis II, Roddenberry assumed that mutants automatically get stronger, hardier, more robust, etc., etc. So that the mutant or Tyrannian race was in fact a new species. And this new species would automatically lord it over ordinary humans, and treat them little better than animals. The mutants built (or had built) a city, Tyrannia, in which the mutants lived lives of almost decadent luxury, while their human "helpers" (read: slaves) toiled in the craft shops, or if they were really "lucky," performed personal or household service.

                    While on the other hand, the humans, who called themselves Pax (Latin for "Peace"), held control of the same underground sub-shuttle system that brought Dylan Hunt (the NASA scientist) to the original Carlsbad Caverns base in the first place. They sought only to bring about peace. They somehow hoped to make that peace, even with the mutants. And they swore to one another that they would die, and let others die, rather than kill.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
                      As in Idocracy the movie, where a precisely average man (Joe) and woman (a rented prostitute named Rita) are put in suspended animation which is to last a very short time, but the project gets canceled, they get forgotten about/abandoned and they are awoken several hundred years later to find a world which as "devolved" and facing extinction due to their lack of basic scientific understanding. In particular a lack of ability to grow crops due to using "Brawndo" (IIRC) - a Gatorade substitute, in place of water has led to a recurrence of the dustbowl and famine.

                      Joe and Rita are comparative geniuses with the rest of the world having been "dumbed down" by dysgenics and "smart" choices by the non-idiots to not have children. It is quite the satirical piece which is where the similarities begin to break down of course.

                      But the setup is close enough to me to wonder if the progenitors of Idiocracy had seen/heard of the Genesis II pilot/premise, though it is more likely to be a take on "the Marching Morons" which is closer and may also be an influence to Roddenberry for Genesis II.

                      Oh and side gem: Dylan Hunt was the name of the captain in Andromeda. ;) GR used that name in a few places it seems.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
              Interesting.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
                A few other little items. The Niners and the Voyagers will form the core of the rebellion. The Niners were on the front line of the Dominion War. The Voyagers got used to an economy of up-front-acknowledged scarcity and developed a more realistic economy--"rep rats" as the unofficial currency on board, and a native guide and cook to serve them real food most of the time.

                In fact, for that Nuremburg-style trial I mentioned, I'm thinking the good ship Voyager, under the command of the former eager-beaver Ensign Harry Kim, will revisit the Delta Quadrant and bring back that native guide, along with twelve other members of his race, to serve as judge and jury!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 6 months ago
                  Of course, with the management of the Star Trek IP holders, nothing innovative is likely to see the light of day. (Not to mention that rebellion against the socialist FED-eration is the opposite of the mainstream media's propaganda objectives.)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by TheRealBill 7 years, 6 months ago
                    Oh they're perfectly happy as long as it is short, no kickstarter stuff, and of crappy production quality per recent "guidelines" from CBS on how-not-to-get-sued-for-fanfic.

                    I think it was primarily driven by: Axanar.
                    http://www.newsweek.com/star-trek-fan... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1_8... for the prelude.

                    I'd watch it, and I suspect I'd enjoy it. But it looks good, has pretty reasonable production quality, and has real actors in it. It is probably better than what CBS is working on anyway. ;)

                    In a way, it is a more prescient scenario to the 3D printer. The technical capability to produce shows on par with, or better than, big studios is already sitting on my desktop for example. It may all be that following this aspect might give an inkling as to how 3D printing may go.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
      I wonder if using frequencies to generate resources might be a possibility. If we could figure out the specific frequency of each element in the table of elements then we might be able to produce on demand.

      They talk about printing Meat...well I am not so confident that they understand or even care about everything that is in a piece of meat including the good bacteria. That's where my idea of using frequencies comes in. Record the frequency of the best, most pure and natural piece of meat cooked to perfection.
      Not even sure that is possible but it's interesting to think about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 6 months ago
    I think your idea of a "replicator" displacing patents will come down to personal use vs using IP for a sale to others.
    That said, it seems unlikely to me that any personal device will ever compete with a larger, mass production device to make the same thing. Efficiency in industrial equipment, processes etc will always crush personal equivalents unless distribution costs absolutely dominate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 7 years, 6 months ago
    It's the chicken or the egg conundrum all over again!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 6 months ago
      I know the religious answer but not the secular answer nor the scientific answer. so I guessed. Please add to the general fund of knowledge.

      a. Religious - The Chicken because God didn't lay an egg.

      b, Secular - Ahh got it. The egg because breakfast come before lunch.

      c. Scientific. - White or Brown or Green? White, red, or speckled?

      d. Subjectivist - Oh I hope so I do hope so!

      e. Objectgivist. Is it useful. Yes and Yes. Did you test it? Yes and yes and yes Sheep provide meat, wool, and some provide milk. Is it moral?: Four out of five ain't bad.

      Printed meat is made out of corn starch like 90% of the rest of the stuff in the mall.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 6 months ago
    Given a reasonable amount of freedom to produce and trade, people via the marketplace will find ways to meet their needs and even thrive. I doubt that patents in their current form will even exist thirty years from now, for reasons stated in the article and also because the process of invention itself will become increasingly automated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 6 months ago
      I disagree. People will still discover things and invent new ways of doing things. The inventor, said Rand, is the last profession to appear in civilization and the first to go when savagery gains the upper hand. And a society that disrespects its inventors, eventually stagnates. And then starts forgetting its discoveries. As the Romans did.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 6 months ago
        The process of invention uses both higher-level concepts and lower-level concepts. At present it is the lower-level portion that lends itself to automation. For example, one can come up with a high-level idea and then, using a computer, build a virtual model of an invention implementing that idea. One can then test millions of variations of that model in a short period of time before constructing an actual physical model incorporating the best features of the virtual one..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
      Not sure it would serve mankind very well for machines to invent machines...that's our job and a job we need to do otherwise we might become worthless and of no value to existence.

      That would certainly take the wind right out of my sails...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 6 months ago
        Not sure what you mean - are you saying that our worthiness to exist depends upon us being able to perform jobs building machines, and if these jobs are no longer needed we are worthless??
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
          No CBJ...I'm saying it's our job to invent, to create...we loose that to a machine...we loose ourselves. It's one thing to have help with that process, it's another to have something do it for us.

          Is that clearer?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 6 months ago
            It’s clearer, but I’m not comfortable with that formulation either. “Job” in this context sounds too much like “duty”. Invention and creation are only a part of what humans can do, and many people go productively through life without doing either.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 6 months ago
              Yea, don't care for those words either but I understand it in an objectivist way. Machines are our helpers...a means to an end, they should never be made our keepers, our masters. We are the creators, the inventors, the dreamers.

              If we are not careful...we might be "transhumanized" out of existence, machined into oblivion. Many a sciencefaction has been written about this danger.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Enyway 7 years, 6 months ago
                That will never happen. In spite of the level of competence or incompetence.

                "Most people can't think. Most of the remainder won't think. The small fraction who do think, mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion; in the long run, these are the only people who count."

                Robert Heinlein

                That small fraction will be the wall between humans and machines. And, that fraction is growing every day.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo