From: Adrian Bowyer (A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 01:49:24 EEST
Quoting Andrew Sofie <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Yes and it still will be expensive to create an xbox, in fact most
> likely more than MS charges. In your project you specifically state it
> will require a " kit" of parts to build even another FDM machine.
> Imagine the "kit" it would require to make an xbox. And would people
> have to solder the individual components to the board? Or would you need
> another "pick-and-place machine for that?
> Once all is said and done, your xbox ended up costing a lot.
> We cant forget people used to make most of their own things but they
> recently stopped because mass-manufacturing could offer them new things
Of course mass production is cheaper than individual production because of
economies of scale. So we should immediately ask - what's cheaper than mass
A Cessna costs an awful lot more than a parrot. Given that the parrot is an
incomparably more subtle and beautiful flying machine than the Cessna, why is
it so much cheaper?
Only one reason: parrots can reproduce; aeroplanes can't. Any self-reproducing
technology has - in the end - to be cheaper than all non-self-reproducing
technologies. Think how much it would cost to build a parrot from the
component chemicals (with or without big-company mass production). And - even
if you could - you would end up with a dead parrot...
> You are talking about atomic scale construction here. No one knows this
> will be possible let alone the incredible amount of basic substances,
> many of which are monitored, one would need to run such a true
> "universal assembler".
No - that would be fun, but it is parrot-buildingly over-the-top for drug
synthesis. All you need for that is to be able to automate a chain of chemical
reactions; i.e. you need a robot chemistry set.
> Think about it; RP will undermine many aspects of patent law (not
> pharmaceuticals though), undermine a great deal of manufacturing,
> probably hit the design market pretty hard, undermine the distribution
> industry (HUGE profits here), really undermine the retail service
> sector ( The majority of jobs in America) and maybe undermine certain
> aspects of government control.
> Nanotech on the other hand will probably only be accessible by a select
> few individuals, be relatively inefficient for building large objects,
> improve nano-scale industrial profits (pharmaceuticals, electronics,
> etc) and probably create more government ability and control.
> RP is just too dangerous for a lot of people.This is really why it is
> truly important as it has the potential to create vast social change.
> Adrian knows this as does Steve and many others.
I think it's only dangerous in the sense that the motor car is dangerous.
Sure - if you give people the internal combustion engine a few will use it to
make tanks. But most will make hundreds of times as many ambulances. That's how
the Maynard-Smith hawks-and-doves utility matrix stabilises - with most people
well-intentioned, and comparatively few bank robbers, generals, muggers and so
> For me nanotech seems like a boondoggle for our time compared to the
> immense amount of greatly needed work in RP technologies.
It depends if people short-sightedly insist on parrot building, which is what
most nanotech bods are doing at the moment. As I said in my previous, the
planet is knee-deep in nanomachines. If we would like nanotech to work, to
work fast, and to work cheaply, we should be adapting them to do what we want.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:18 EET