Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This has great space colonizations strategy... just send the 3d printer, drones and power resource to the celestial bodies.... viola, fabricaded abodes and supplies as neede!

 whembly wrote:
This has great space colonizations strategy... just send the 3d printer, drones and power resource to the celestial bodies.... viola, fabricaded abodes and supplies as neede!

Except you would need to ship the same weight in the materials required plus a giant machine that's not very efficient at creating structures (printing isn't nearly as material light as just building a lattice out of metal and giving it a skin). Just ship the buildings instead.

Better off sending a drill robot and drill straight into the moon. Then another robot to install a airlock....

Materials would be on location... nasa did a theorectical study where we could send robots, power source to mars with todays tech. The drones the mine the needed materials, power supply to feed a 3d printer and other builders. Im on my phone, but ill try to find the link fornya...

Polymers are hard as hell to make from their basic elements and compounds. You need incredible purity in your raw materials to make the plastic used in this video. The reactor needed to make the polymers is pretty damn complex.

I know. I used to make them.

Much easier to send the components for the habitat and build it there.

Tunnel sounds much of a better outcome. Of course this would be a huge endeaver. Start small like ISS

 purplefood wrote:

 Henners91 wrote:
Hooray for bland identical neighbourhoods springing up.

You can paint a favela bright colours, but it won't hide the paupers within.

Pretty much every neighbourhood (At least in the UK) is constructed around the same time which usually means the houses are pretty much identical...

Yea its that way here in the states too. Hell my neighborhood has all of 3 different house styles, and theres probably 200 houses where I live. Its pretty bland

 purplefood wrote:
That's cool...
Construction industry won't like it though...

 Jihadin wrote:
Better off sending a drill robot and drill straight into the moon. Then another robot to install a airlock....

This really is the best way to go about it. Avoids the radiation issue for inhabitants too. It's not a very romantic idea, so it doesn't get a lot of credit but it's the most efficient and effective solution I've yet to hear about making permanent installations on other worlds.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's only relevant whenever those people actually have an alternate employment method.

Not that I oppose 3d printing, I'm just saying, it's not as rosy as they would like to make it out to be.

So which is the greater tragedy:

a few million people with work history having to find new jobs?
or
the 1 billion people living in slums with no income or work opportunity at all?

Who says that first world societies deserve better treatment?

The tech was designed with those 1 billion people in mind, not the less than 1% of that who will have to change careers.

Plenty of other industries underwent just as drastic of changes, and society adapted. Cars, computers, etc.

There isan argaanization that provides one room house builds in a couple of hours. Price is negligible.

Good idea though if the manufacturing cost is better than regular construction. Of course you have to transport.
Not much different than trailer park houses though. Put these down and tornadoes will come within 20 minutes. Its the law.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
No, Melissa is still pissed off at all capitalists since she was fired from some fast food franchise or something.

It gets old.

Crazily I'm with Melissia and Shumagoroth. Quick someone hold me!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
That's just brilliant, I thought printing organs was the best thing a 3d printer could do. But a fully automated robotic house builder that can be launched to the moon, or mars, to start building a colony is just awesome.

Thats an excellent idea. Capital good sir!

 Piston Honda wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
That's cool...
Construction industry won't like it though...

Spoiler:

BACK TO THE PILE!!!

YOU WILL DO WHAT I SAY!!! BACK TO THE FRONT!!!....eerrrr wait...wrong subject....

 Jihadin wrote:
YOU WILL DO WHAT I SAY!!! BACK TO THE FRONT!!!....eerrrr wait...wrong subject....

\m/

 Frazzled wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's only relevant whenever those people actually have an alternate employment method.

Not that I oppose 3d printing, I'm just saying, it's not as rosy as they would like to make it out to be.

So which is the greater tragedy:

a few million people with work history having to find new jobs?
or
the 1 billion people living in slums with no income or work opportunity at all?

Who says that first world societies deserve better treatment?

The tech was designed with those 1 billion people in mind, not the less than 1% of that who will have to change careers.

Plenty of other industries underwent just as drastic of changes, and society adapted. Cars, computers, etc.

There isan argaanization that provides one room house builds in a couple of hours. Price is negligible.

Good idea though if the manufacturing cost is better than regular construction. Of course you have to transport.
Not much different than trailer park houses though. Put these down and tornadoes will come within 20 minutes. Its the law.

The video does mention the design potential. He cites some adobe structures that were built some time ago in the most earthquake prone area of Iran that are still standing in perfect condition.

Also, a house made out of reinforced concrete won't just up and fly towards downtown in a tornado. The structural integrity is massive compared to trailers and manufactured homes. The energy efficiency would be much higher as well, as stone insulates much better than double wides.

He does mention that the only lower cost of housing than this is the emergency housing you mention, which is single room. The quality of these would be far superior I'd imagine.

As to the jobs, since people apparently don't read my rants on it, as one market loses positions of employment, others create them. People need to realize that no, the drywaller who lost his job won't be doing drywall anymore. Instead, he can get any number of entry level office jobs and learn a new craft since his old one is obsolete. Just like all those farmers did, just like all those manufacturers did.

Boo hoo that your old career choice died out. The benefit of the tech advancement outweighs your personal loss. Get a new job and start over. It sucks, but it is inevitable.

If people from my generation have any clue of what they are doing, they will look to computer based careers as those aren't going away anytime soon. The automation of computers that program computers to program computers is quite far away.

People need to focus on finding answers instead of complaining about the questions.

 Huffy wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
That's cool...
Construction industry won't like it though...

Spoiler:

BACK TO THE PILE!!!

not sure if I want to be in the top, bottom or middle.

Decisions, decisions.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's only relevant whenever those people actually have an alternate employment method.

Not that I oppose 3d printing, I'm just saying, it's not as rosy as they would like to make it out to be.

So which is the greater tragedy:

a few million people with work history having to find new jobs?
or
the 1 billion people living in slums with no income or work opportunity at all?

Who says that first world societies deserve better treatment?

The tech was designed with those 1 billion people in mind, not the less than 1% of that who will have to change careers.

Plenty of other industries underwent just as drastic of changes, and society adapted. Cars, computers, etc.

There isan argaanization that provides one room house builds in a couple of hours. Price is negligible.

Good idea though if the manufacturing cost is better than regular construction. Of course you have to transport.
Not much different than trailer park houses though. Put these down and tornadoes will come within 20 minutes. Its the law.

The video does mention the design potential. He cites some adobe structures that were built some time ago in the most earthquake prone area of Iran that are still standing in perfect condition.

Also, a house made out of reinforced concrete won't just up and fly towards downtown in a tornado. The structural integrity is massive compared to trailers and manufactured homes. The energy efficiency would be much higher as well, as stone insulates much better than double wides.

He does mention that the only lower cost of housing than this is the emergency housing you mention, which is single room. The quality of these would be far superior I'd imagine.

As to the jobs, since people apparently don't read my rants on it, as one market loses positions of employment, others create them. People need to realize that no, the drywaller who lost his job won't be doing drywall anymore. Instead, he can get any number of entry level office jobs and learn a new craft since his old one is obsolete. Just like all those farmers did, just like all those manufacturers did.

Boo hoo that your old career choice died out. The benefit of the tech advancement outweighs your personal loss. Get a new job and start over. It sucks, but it is inevitable.

If people from my generation have any clue of what they are doing, they will look to computer based careers as those aren't going away anytime soon. The automation of computers that program computers to program computers is quite far away.

People need to focus on finding answers instead of complaining about the questions.

What happens when 10% of all jobs are filled by robots 20% 30% then what, When it takes 10 engineers, and 10 mechanics to build, design, and maintain 1000 robots, you end up with massive unemployment. There has never been a market in history that has ever faced automation at the scale we're facing

I've never understood this argument that we should keep doing things inefficiently so that someone has a job. Replacing old practices with more efficient ones is how we improve living standards.

Moving labour that used to be tied up in building houses, and into, say, building house making robots and other kinds of 3D printing would expand living standards immensely.

It would mean transition costs, but you deal with those. You reskill labour. You don't just refuse progress. That's just bizarre, quite frankly.

I wasn't suggesting that it was a bad thing merely that eventually you can't just move labor around, were going to have to face it eventually and I honestly have no idea what were going to do

 youbedead wrote:
What happens when 10% of all jobs are filled by robots 20% 30% then what, When it takes 10 engineers, and 10 mechanics to build, design, and maintain 1000 robots, you end up with massive unemployment. There has never been a market in history that has ever faced automation at the scale we're facing

We do what we've always done - we change the rules. When feudalism stopped working we changed to mercantilism. When mercantilism stopped working we changed to capitalism.

We don't even have to try to change this. We just put out each spotfire when it happens, and after a while we look back and see what we've got today is nothing like what they once had.

 youbedead wrote:
What happens when 10% of all jobs are filled by robots 20% 30% then what, When it takes 10 engineers, and 10 mechanics to build, design, and maintain 1000 robots, you end up with massive unemployment. There has never been a market in history that has ever faced automation at the scale we're facing

Implement a socialist government that can provide for the unemployed (OH GOD NO NOT IN AMERICA!!!!!) in the short term, then dump massive funding into science research and push for 99% as fast as possible. Energy is effectively infinite (especially once you get fusion power working) and raw materials are effectively infinite once you start exploiting space resources, so once you completely automate production of all necessary goods you can move to a post-scarcity communist system in which unemployment ceases to matter.

 Peregrine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
What happens when 10% of all jobs are filled by robots 20% 30% then what, When it takes 10 engineers, and 10 mechanics to build, design, and maintain 1000 robots, you end up with massive unemployment. There has never been a market in history that has ever faced automation at the scale we're facing

Implement a socialist government that can provide for the unemployed (OH GOD NO NOT IN AMERICA!!!!!) in the short term, then dump massive funding into science research and push for 99% as fast as possible. Energy is effectively infinite (especially once you get fusion power working) and raw materials are effectively infinite once you start exploiting space resources, so once you completely automate production of all necessary goods you can move to a post-scarcity communist system in which unemployment ceases to matter.

... and boldly go were no man has gone before?

 youbedead wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that it was a bad thing merely that eventually you can't just move labor around, were going to have to face it eventually and I honestly have no idea what were going to do

Sure thing.

I had acutally quoted someone from the first page, but when I finished my answer I realised I was commenting more on the thread in general I deleted the quote.

I realise it ended up looking like my post was to you in specific. Sorry about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Implement a socialist government that can provide for the unemployed

Honestly I think it's a mistake to assume future solutions are going to come from pre-existing ideas. Not that I think you're wrong necessarily, but I think once you propose automation on this level it's more a watch this space kind of deal.

 sebster wrote:
Honestly I think it's a mistake to assume future solutions are going to come from pre-existing ideas. Not that I think you're wrong necessarily, but I think once you propose automation on this level it's more a watch this space kind of deal.

Yeah, it's just a temporary solution to last long enough to get through the bad period where automation has killed a lot of jobs, but not completely eliminated scarcity yet. Once you get through that transition period you'll end up with a completely new system of government, probably some form of communist system, or an extremely limited government with a sole purpose of keeping people from hurting each other.

While I'm not all for complete communism as it works in practice, I do think that corporations should divert funding away from CEO bonuses into new positions. They could be R&D jobs, or increased manufacturing/sales/data services, whatever.

You know how much in bonuses GM's CEO made last year? 5.9 million. On top of his 1.7 million salary. And that is a company that has yet to pay back it's bailout, despite making 7.2 billion in profit in 2011. Why should one man take that much in bonuses(and then complain about it), the company turn massive profit, NOT pay their federal debt, and still not be creating a crap ton of jobs? From his bonus GM could have created 114 jobs at the national median income. Instead he got it all, and most likely didn't even come close to running that amount in living expenses. How many people in middle class income are able to survive a year by saving 85% of their income? Not a damn one. How many millionaires actually spend as much of their income just to live as the working class does? I doubt a single one.

You want more jobs? Make them. Force change on those companies, whether it be change in the private sector or if the government is needed to do it for us.

I'm all for capitalism, provided that the countries interest as a whole is the driving force behind it. How many honest middle class workers would be unhappy with $1,000,000? Every single person I know would retire on that amount. They don't want beach front property, and a yacht, and a summer home. They want a single home to spend the rest of their lives in, and enough money to pay the bills and not starve. How many millionaires are ok with just the first million?

Capitalism should not be about greed, it should be about free competitive markets that support our society. Why bother with capitalism if only the 1% survive it?

I'm not saying to take away the money they already have. I'm saying to stop giving them more. They aren't saving it for a rainy day. They aren't saving up for that island in Dubai. They are just accruing it until they die, then they leave it all to some spoiled snot who feels like he earned it.

Alas, none of this has to do with printing houses.

 Aerethan wrote:
While I'm not all for complete communism as it works in practice

That's because communism only works once you get rid of scarcity. Of course once you do get rid of scarcity communism becomes inevitable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
While I'm not all for complete communism as it works in practice

That's because communism only works once you get rid of scarcity.

and greedy people.

and lazy people.

communism will never work in practice, and that is solely because of people. There will always be someone who wants more.

 Aerethan wrote:
and greedy people.

and lazy people.

communism will never work in practice, and that is solely because of people. There will always be someone who wants more.

Err, you realize what removing scarcity means, right? So what if you're lazy, 99.9% of the work is done by machines. So what if you're greedy, you just tell your personal factory to assemble whatever you want. "Wanting more" has no point in a world where any person can have anything they want for the token effort of telling a machine to provide it.

And of course the most important factor here is that there's no way to get financial power over someone. You might want to have a giant house and a hundred slaves to serve you, but why would anyone accept that status when they can have, for zero effort, everything required to live a comfortable life? You'll just end up ignored as "that crazy guy", and have exactly the same things as everyone else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
and greedy people.

and lazy people.

communism will never work in practice, and that is solely because of people. There will always be someone who wants more.

Err, you realize what removing scarcity means, right? So what if you're lazy, 99.9% of the work is done by machines. So what if you're greedy, you just tell your personal factory to assemble whatever you want. "Wanting more" has no point in a world where any person can have anything they want for the token effort of telling a machine to provide it.

And of course the most important factor here is that there's no way to get financial power over someone. You might want to have a giant house and a hundred slaves to serve you, but why would anyone accept that status when they can have, for zero effort, everything required to live a comfortable life? You'll just end up ignored as "that crazy guy", and have exactly the same things as everyone else.

excuse my ignorance. I took the term scarcity at it's face value, which apparently was incorrect.

A better way to word it is basically the removal of currency.

Now to refer you to what happens when life gets that cushy, go watch WALL-E.

And good luck convincing that 1% that their money is obsolete.

The idea that someone can just walk into some service industry job (like data entry, call centre work etc) after being laid off from their previous employment just doesn't gel with reality. Who wants to hire some 40 or 50 year old ex-builder who has skills and expectations when you can take on some 18 year old with at least a passing competence with computers who is happy (or at least resigned to) to work for nothing in an oppressive environment with little to no prospect of advancement?

If you have ever worked in, or known someone who has worked in these kinds of jobs you can understand why people would do almost anything to avoid them. We may have gotten rid of the workhouses, but we have more than made up for it with low skill data processing jobs.

Regards 3D house printing it is a logical extension of the technology and indeed of the trend towards prefabrication in general. I think for the moment it will still be easier to build houses on site, or ship in prefabricated units than to print houses. There will also still need to be at least sone construction work to prepare and finish the site even if printers come to dominate the market... At least until automated excavation and so on start to be more fully developed

 Aerethan wrote:
A better way to word it is basically the removal of currency.

No, the removal of scarcity is correct. Currency has value as a medium of exchange because resources are limited. I give GW tokens of currency in exchange for toy soldiers because GW controls the limited supply of them. Even if you remove currency, you still have scarcity, you've just changed everything to a barter system or whatever.

What I'm talking about is removing that limited supply entirely, through a combination of free energy, automated production and space mining for raw materials. Once you have that, supplies of any physical good become effectively unlimited, and greed simply has no purpose.

And good luck convincing that 1% that their money is obsolete.

Why bother? Nobody will have to be convinced of anything, money will simply become obsolete. Why should I care that you have 9999999999999 pieces of paper with funny symbols on them when I have an automated factory capable of providing me with anything I want? If I want pieces of paper with funny symbols on them (maybe they make pretty wallpaper?) I'll just tell my factory to make me some of my own.