June 15, 2005
TALK ABOUT DEFLATIONARY PRESSURE (via Michael Herdegen):
Physics genius plans to make 'Star Trek' replicator a reality (Kevin Maney, 6/14/05, USA Today)
"This machine makes every man self-sufficient. It takes the stickum right out of society."Posted by Orrin Judd at June 15, 2005 7:31 AMThat's a quote from a 1958 science-fiction story, Business as Usual, During Alterations, by Ralph Williams. It's about a machine called a duplicator, which aliens drop off on Earth as a test for humans. Put anything on the duplicator's tray and the machine makes an exact copy.
People go nuts, making duplicate duplicators, then making jewelry, clothes, food and money, rendering all products and cash virtually worthless. It's both a dream machine and a nightmare machine, giving everyone what they want but threatening to wreck the economy and the underpinnings of civilization.
So, of course somebody is really inventing one today.
And not some loony in a garage who thinks he's Dick Van Dyke in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This is Neil Gershenfeld, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Bits and Atoms and a certifiable physics genius. He's got backing from the National Science Foundation. He's got interest from the Pentagon, venture capitalists and foreign governments. This week, he's in South Africa, where he's setting up one of his creations in Pretoria.
He calls his machines "fabs," and he's just published a book about his work, Fab: The Coming Revolution On Your Desktop — From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication.
Gershenfeld's ultimate goal is to invent home fabrication machines that will be as common as Hewlett-Packard ink-jet printers. They will be able to make anything: custom Barbie clothes, MP3 players, cow-shaped cream pitchers, Barry Bonds baseball cards from the 1980s when he looked skinny — you name it.
"We're aiming at making the Star Trek replicator," Gershenfeld says, referring to the machine on the USS Enterprise that could conjure up a cup of coffee or a toenail clipper on command.
How far along is Gershenfeld? Well, in one sense, not very.
seems like a good time to invest in basic materials.
Apperently the only components that still need a little work are the artificial intelligence and the small fusion reactor.
Posted by: Daran at June 15, 2005 9:32 AMSo we walk uo to a niche in the wall, say, "Computer, Tea, Earl Grey, hot!" and the cup of tea costs about $2.4B, or we just make the damn tea on the stove for a half a buck--I wonder which will be more popular.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 15, 2005 10:01 AMMy guess is generic manufacturing technology
will put deflationary pressue relatively soon.
Essentially the manufacturing process becomes
more like the software model where a manufacturing
device is whatever you program it to be.
This could move us further away from high volume
capitalism.
There are already modeling systems that will
create models of parts and machines based upon
3D CAD input.
Manufacturing finished products will require a bit more refinement.
Posted by: J.H. at June 15, 2005 10:08 AMScrew that, I want a Holodeck.
Posted by: Governor Breck at June 15, 2005 10:14 AM7 of 9
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 10:21 AMJust think of the scope this will provide for bad taste.
Uh, could this thing duplicate people?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 15, 2005 10:47 AMMatt;
No. It doesn't really "duplicate" anything, that's just the author being stupid. Gershenfeld's book title is far more accurate, assuming you know that in geek speak "fab" is short for "fabricator" not "fabulous". It's really just a very sophisticated factory, small enough to fit in your house or even on your desk. You feed it blueprints and it makes what the blueprints describe.
Personally, I think what a boon this will be for modelers and that they're likely to be the first adopters. Want a perfect replica of a 1934 San Francisco street car in H scale? Download the plans and "print it" on your fabricator. The biggest hurdle for which no solution is known is working with arbitrary materials rather than what is used now, highly specialized "ink". For instance, one could not print gold coins even if one had the gold available. I suspect that's the aspect Gershenfeld is working on.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 15, 2005 11:10 AMThere are still many things that would not have their value compromised by a replicator system. For example, how would you replicate the original Mona Lisa? The can be only one original, and that scarcity would mean that its price would still be high. Personal services also cannot be replicated. Examples: a live concert from your favourite band, medical services, painting. Intangibles continue to be valuable, such as patents and stocks and bonds.
It would be interesting to speculate how the transition period would occur for introduction of a replicator tech into society. Would you see cartels trying to control the tech and the distribution of the devices and their products? Would there be huge attempts to make items "copy protected" in the smae way the music industry tries to fight music downloads/cd copying?
Posted by: BC Monkey at June 15, 2005 12:10 PMWhy would the original Mona Lisa be worth more than an exact duplicate and how would you tell?
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 12:28 PMOJ: Before you ask for 7 of 9, you might want to talk to ex, whose political career she trashed.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 15, 2005 12:48 PMThe more I think about it, the more I am convinced the govt. will never allow it.
They would lose control over people.
How easy would it be to make a gun without any papers.
explosives?
Drugs?
One coul blame that on the courts making the divorce records public.
Posted by: David Reeves at June 15, 2005 2:25 PMFirst of all, if it really duplicates things "exactly", then, yes, it could duplicate a person.
Secondly, there are some valuable things it could not make more of, the obvious one being time. Another is matter/energy, although that stuff is in such large supply it hardly seems like a binding constraint.
Other things it could not help you to do are travel faster than light, increase your intelligence, or make you more creative.
A lot of this stuff has already been mulled over in nanotech sci-fi.
And now a comment from Butthead: "Seven of Nine. I like her Borg implants. Hey, baby, my warp coil is straightening out, huh huh."
Posted by: Tom at June 15, 2005 4:09 PMHe's not talking about transmutation here, so desktop fabs would be bound by the relative scarcity of the elements. 3-D printers are actually a pretty robust technology now and I wouldn't be surprise to see them start appearing in desktop models soon.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2005 4:35 PMNot quite speak of the Devil, but extremely cool.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2005 8:32 PM"One coul blame that on the courts making the divorce records public."
Damn things are not maintenance free. "If you want to be happy the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife."
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 15, 2005 10:45 PMTom:
To duplicate a person, you'ld need an accurate blueprint; it's not all all clear that you could produce such without destroying the original... (of course, now you've got a transporter!).
Posted by: Mike Earl at June 16, 2005 10:22 AMEarl - Certainly, but that also applies to anything else you'd want to duplicate. I guess your point is not about what we could do, but what we'd be willing to do - that we wouldn't mind destriying, e.g., a cup of tea to get the blueprint, but we would mind destroying a person.
Posted by: Tom at June 17, 2005 8:24 AM