[ExI] [Open Manufacturing] Re: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: It is all free! The improbable dream?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Philippe Van Nedervelde wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Philippe Van Nedervelde wrote:
>> > But brand products and other products with added-value design or with IP
>> > (licenses) involved... will still cost. Some may even still cost
>> > (relatively) a lot.
>>
>> Meh, the rest of us will ignore your "IP laws".
>
> *My* IP laws??

That's what you're proposing, isn't it? That "brand products and other
products with IP (licenses) involved.. will still cost." But that's
not true at all: it only costs if you pay up for it, which isn't
something that you need to do if you can just do it yourself with
machines that you don't even have to figure out how to program.

>> > An example: you will still pay something for your future nanofactured
>> > iPhone
>> > 7G S or newest model of all-electric newest model Ferrari. The structure
>> > of
>>
>> Sorry Philippe: I will not now, nor will I ever, pay for my
>> nanofactured iphone. I'll nanofacture it myself.
>
>
> Not without first paying future-Apple for the license to materialize it with
> your nanofactory. No payment, no nanofacturing green light.

What is a red light? Some angry guy throwing chairs by psychic telekinesis?

> Unless you will knowingly and willfully nanofacture an illegal knock-off, or
> do so using a stolen or cracked nanofacturable file.

Why are you proposing encrypted nanofacturable package files anyway?
That doesn't sound useful to humans.

>> (Actually, I won't,
>> because nobody has a complete working model of MEMS or nano
>> manufacturing at the moment (diamond mechanosynthesis does not count),
>> so in the mean time I'll stick with some plastic injection molding and
>> factories that I've been meaning to build.)
>
> OK :-)  RepRap?   I'm a fan.

Maybe. I'm not so sure. I'm not actually interested in building a case
at the moment (plastic cases are very over-rated), and even if I was,
I am not sure I'd want to go with the reprap approach.

>> > that payment will be, overwhelmingly, for licenses and "brand" value,
>> > with
>> > (nearly) insignificant percentages for assembly, handling, materials and
>> > other classic cost-places.
>> I don't know if the singularity can be "licensed".
>
> Being realistic, it's a safe bet to count on some to try.

But if someone else gets there first and just gives the tech away,
that's it- some people might "try" but the proliferation of free
technology will occur whether or not there exists other solutions out
there. Something about the mean path of least resistance.

>> > Note that Eric (Drexler), Rob (Freitas), Ralph (Merkle), Josh (Storrs
>> > Hall),
>> > Christine (Peterson) etc. never said or wrote that everything would
>> > become
>> > "free".
>>
>> However, many of the discussions on openmanufacturing have pointed in
>> that direction (not necessarily with nanotechnology's involvement).
>
> Ok by me. It will be interesting to see what actually transpires.
>
>> > Note that the ways things are going now, acquiring your (personal?)
>> > nanofacturing device is more likely than not to cost you something too.
>> > At
>>
>> That's why you shouldn't "acquire it" and just build it.
>
> You are going to build your own nanofactory?

You aren't? Either I will build my tools, or my tools will build my
tools for me. Gentoo users are some of my best friends.

>> > least initially, early on, this may even be a pretty penny. It's just in
>> > my
>>
>> That's only if you're willing to pay for it.
>
> Many will be willing. The overwhelming majority cannot "just build it" for
> themselves.

That's only because you don't know how to tell them how to build it.
And the only reason for *that* is you don't know how to build it.
Gentoo users don't have to be told about kernel secrets just to
compile their desktop computer system, and yet it happens every day of
every year, thousands of times a day. Imagine that..

>> > proposals for an explicitly philanthropic "Abundance For All" project
>> > that
>> > your personal nanofactory would not cost you anything.
>>
>> If you give a man a fish..
>
> Yes. And your point is?

Why not teach them how to fish instead of just giving it to them? Paul
Fernhout likes to run around these parts talking about some issues
related to putting post-scarcity tools into the hands of
scarcity-preoccupied individuals. I suppose people might still be
pre-occupied with scarcity even once they build or know how to build
their machine, but it's likely that by the time they are done, they
would realize what it is capable of doing.

>> > products. But others, for various reasons, are seriously considering the
>> > option of making a business out of selling feedstock to nanofactory
>> > owners.
>
>> Why wouldn't nanofactories be able to build machines to create feedstock?
>
> Indeed. Rob (Freitas) for instance worries that this could too easily lead
> to malicious abuses. Think of (somehow) (autonomous) mobile nanofactories
> which go around converting stuff around them to create more copies of
> themselves.

You have to deal with that type of situation anyway, because it's
already happened once in evolutionary history.

> I think that that is arguably far-fetched, but there you have it.

Nah, I don't think it's far fetched, but I don't see what it has to do
with whether or not I will fabricate components to such a device to be
able to harvest feedstock from its surrounding materials (etc.).

>> > They reckon that might yield them a (quite lucrative) business model
>> > like
>> > that of printer cartridges, razor blades and after-market car parts and
>> > accessories.
>>
>> I don't understand why I would want to buy a print cartridge when I
>> could just harvest feedstock automatically myself- with minimal effort
>> and automation that is expected of nano-anything.
>
> You are too readily assuming that you would obtain the mature nanofacturing
> capability without strings attached intended to prevent malicious abuses.
> Odds are you won't get the raw power unfettered. And that's probably a good
> thing.

Then what are your thoughts on bootstrapping in linux kernels? Whoever
worked on that- are they going to burn in hell for their sins or
something? That would be absurd.

>> > So, no, it will most likely not all be free. Certainly not initially.
>
>> Maybe you should try to change that, Philippe.
>
> Maybe I already tried? See my Abundance For All proposal(s). So far, A4A is
> not getting (enough) traction. I'll keep at it though. Gutta cavat lapidem,
> non vi sed saepe cadendo. ;-)

What does traction have to do with anything? The beauty of these
exponential explosions is that they don't have to have any traction at
all save for at least one person (or optionally more) who is able to
get it done.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507