[HPBEggo]

It seems to me that, in many cases, getting one's hands on the materials necessary for printing a car would make things prohibitive for the individual.

Still a very interesting idea, but I'm not seeing something like a car being printed without some major economic shifts.

[pwg]

> It seems to me that, in many cases, getting one's hands on the materials necessary for printing a car would make things prohibitive for the individual.

Seventy-five years ago (1937), in the era of cellulose film, your statement would have been identically applicable to the equipment and materials necessary for recording a "motion-picture".

Move forward seventy-five years to 2012, and you can walk into just about any store, and for a small amount of money walk out with a "motion-picture" recording device, affordable by an individual, that can record a "motion-picture" every bit as good, if not infinitely better, than what the "professionals" had to work with in 1937.

Seventy-five years from now (2087), 3D printing just very well may have advanced to the point where it would be quite feasible to "print" a car, and at a price perfectly affordable to an individual.

[DougN7]

Interesting idea. So you go to a download site and grab the latest offering from Ferrari... Everything of value is then IP -- ie the plans and design. Does Ferrari bother selling it's designs if they can be downloaded from a torrent? How does Ferrari stay in business at that point? I've never taken "open source" like this to the logical conclusion before, where anything physical can be constructed if you have the materials and a 3D printer...

[swombat]

Let me get this straight.

We propose a society where scarcity is a thing that only exists in fiction and history books, where all physical items can be copied at will, where the idea of "owning" a physical thing is as pointless as the idea of "owning" an idea is, where (as a natural consequence) world hunger is probably a thing of the past, as are poverty, industrial labour, and many other things we take for granted...

And your first question is "How does Ferrari stay in business?"

Worth noting that this is more or less the same thing as what's happening with art at the moment. I could paraphrase it as:

"We propose a society where information scarcity is a thing that only exists in fiction and history books, where all information (sound, video, text, etc) can be copied at will and instantly all around the world, where the idea of "owning" a bunch of bytes is as pointless as the idea of owning the shape of a cloud in the sky, where (as a natural consequence) education, art, civilisation and all those things that make mankind worthy of existence are infinitely more powerful than before because of their ubiquity and availability to all, and your first question is... How does Sony Music stay in business?"

[HPBEggo]

The question, I think, is more relevant than you make it appear.

The only factor of production eliminated by the introduction of what is, essentially, automated labor is labor. A similarly important factor of production is not - raw materials.

Just because you have some way to produce something doesn't mean you can create the materials to do so. Regardless of whether or not you can produce something when you have the materials, you still need to purchase or otherwise obtain the materials to do so.

I think the more important question is, "How does Ferrari stay in business, when the only thing that they truly control is the code for producing a Ferrari?" What this essentially does is transform everything into an intellectual property issue, much as the Internet has done for digital media.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

The 3D printer is just a manufacturing method. The scarcity problem will still exist in the form of raw materials -- somebody's got to pay for it.

Information is a completely different animal. If there were actual physical costs to the person downloading copyrighted material illegally, do you think the RIAA and MPAA would be as agitated as they are?

[swombat]

Matter and energy are somewhat interchangeable (with SF technology, anyway, which is what we're talking about).

We (as in, the face of the Earth) receive 1.7E17 J of energy from the sun every second. That's 53.6E23 J of energy per year.

Worldwide energy consumption as of 2008 was 4.74E20 J. It's risen a bit since (thanks China!), but not by more than an order of magnitude. So that means we're receiving enough energy from the sun to power today's civilisation a hundred times over. And that's just the energy which lands on the face of the Earth.

My point is, really, that energy (and hence matter) is quite plentiful if you know how to make efficient use of it. By the time we have cornucopia devices, we'll probably have the technology so that accumulating the energy/matter for making a car is just a question of leaving it outside in the sun/rain/air for long enough and/or dumping a bunch of dirt into it.

[dwiel]

The interesting part is the 'long tail,' to borrow for the previous decade.

If you can print cars, you can print open source clothes, homes, appliances, solar panels, greenhouses, robots and more printers. Everyone who currently works a full/part-time job to pay the bills while their real passion lies in painting, or programming, or partying, or golf can stop working. Even the people who want to stay up on the latest DRMed fashion trends without breaking the law will have a hard time finding work to pay for it.

That said, there will still be people with power who can lure others into helping them, by offering in exchange the opportunity at a cut of that power - because you can't print power ... or, well ... with printable smarter than human AIs, can you?

[HPBEggo]

This is exactly what I said?

[tmelot]

It might seem 'absurd' now, but these things happen: http://lesswrong.com/lw/j1/stranger_than_history/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/j4/absurdity_heuristic_absurdity_bia... are 2 excellent reads.

Historically crying out, "That's absurd!" has ruled out actual outcomes. It has done worse than maximum entropy.

So now it might seem prohibitive, but it might be common place before you know it.

[nextparadigms]

Think of 3D printers as version 0.01 of a Star Trek replicator. It won't be until these "3D printers" use nanotechnology that we can make such complex things in one go.

Right now most of them work with plastic, but it won't be that long until they can use liquid metal, too. They should become a little more useful then.

[dwiel]

laser printers can already print metal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering