Star Trek Replicators

[SS-18 ICBM]

@SS-18 ICBM:
Research is expensive because companies have to pay people money to do things. People demand lots of money because things they want to buy are expensive.

Sometime, they're expensive because the components are rare and the skills required to build and operate them are time-consuming and expensive to learn. It take pretty much 30 years of a life just to be able to do actual participatory bench work. Certain materials are expensive. If your research requires a rare radioactive element, it follows that said research will be expensive, and freer IP rules cannot violate the conservation of matter.

 

[Mise]

Then in those industries the point I was talking about would not be reached. Do you agree in principle that, at some point, the benefit to society of cheaper and better goods outweighs whatever reduction in innovation results from scrapping IP laws?

 

[Greizer85]

Replicators require energy, and thus the old economic style marches on.

What do you think Sahara and the oceans would look like if we had replicators?

Spoiler :

You couldn't see them; only powerplants.

Yes, ofc doctors would still need teachers, singers would need massages and so on, so we could go on using paper money. Or maybe some sort of electric credits, since, you know, paper notes could easily be replicated.

As for the current world: because of scarcity, the incentive to get rich dominates over natural good will and enlightenment. There is a mechanism by which greed can operate (and I wouldn't maybe call wanting to free yourself from slavish grinding "greed" as such). So IP laws are still necessary to ensure innovation, imo. Not that I'm an expert on this subject (or any, really).

Edit: My points kinda crookedly contradict each other. Unless, say, the singer only charges for his/her gigs, there must still be IP laws for him/her to benefit from his/her intellectual products. I guess communist paradise has some snakes after all...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Do you agree in principle that, at some point, the benefit to society of cheaper and better goods outweighs whatever reduction in innovation results from scrapping IP laws?

Mostly yes. But I am concerned about pharmaceuticals and other similar sectors with high R&D budgets.

Intelligent robots might do this for skills and creativity.

The Singularity, huh?

EDIT: As you can see, I am "thinking out loud". I might formulate something more substantial this weekend...

Not bad for idle speculation.

 

[onedreamer]

you're talking of thin air. Such an invention would not be available or usable for free. At the very least there would be a fee for each use, and so on.

Not to mention that anyone with a brain big enough to invent such a thing would never share it with anyone else, it would be a harm more than good for humanity and most of all it would be a harm more than good for him/herself.

 

[Mise]

@SS-18 ICBM: Hopefully the super-intelligent robots won't usurp our place as rightful rulers of the universe. Or worse, demand to be compensated for their work

@onedreamer: I hope you can see the intentional similarities between the replication network and the internet, or other existing devices that can create near identical copies of things on a large scale for near-zero marginal cost (printing press/photocopiers, factories, etc). What I'm really saying is that these things have happened before, and have revolutionised various parts of our life. What the replicator scenario does is generalise this to pretty much any physical device. Yes, at first, it will be horded - but since all it requires is energy, and since it converts energy into matter and vice versa, it would not be hard to imagine, for example, a device that takes simple dirt from the ground, re-arranges the molecules and atoms (or converts them to energy and back again, or whatever), and produces edible proteins, fats, vitamins, etc -- for example, a steak dinner. And it's not hard to imagine that this device will one day sit in every household in the world, turning dirt and sunlight into food without first turning it into grass then a cow then a steak.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Not to mention that anyone with a brain big enough to invent such a thing would never share it with anyone else

I think that was the intention of the US regarding nuclear weapons. How did that turn out again?

Or worse, demand to be compensated for their work

What could they possibly want? There's replicators.

 

[Greizer85]

The ability to buy services ("service credits") would become the new form of riches. If there were no more IP laws, you couldn't get rich by your own innovations. However, arguably (since there is not much else to do!) people would still offer their innovations freely for the good of humanity, gladly enough. But we must not underestimate the lure of services (especially new ones, which would abound): we're biased in that we value matter highly because it is scarce. If matter were to become worthless, the value of services would skyrocket (you'd spend most of your time using some service, most likely).

People would want more and better services than others, and if innovations could be patented and profited from, this would lead to the birth of a new elite class of rich citizens. That's what I think, anyway. There's no way to tell what would happen in reality, since such a situation is so foreign to us chain-slaves of King Matter.

@onedreamer: Explain your viewpoint more, please. I think replicators would right now be one of the best possible things for humanity. If I could 'invent' such a device right now, I'd do it in a heartbeat and ensure that the plans get shipped to all countries. Ideally, to each household.

Edit: Intelligent (enough) robots will eventually lead to the demise of humanity! Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Mise]

@Greizer: Yeah, I personally find it impossible to imagine just how many new and different types of services we would see in a world where material objects cost virtually nothing. I guess it's like in the 50s, when dishwashers, microwaves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, fridge-freezers, etc were making Western housewives wonder, "golly gee, what am I going to do all day?!"

 

[MobBoss]

Replicators require energy, and thus the old economic style marches on.

Pats right on this one. They dont really solve everything unless we have a limitless supply of energy on hand to take advantage of it.

 

[Greizer85]

@ Mise: Yes, it would be much the same, although an even more radical situation.

Depending on the properties of the actual replication process, humans could potentially augment their own minds and bodies, which would lead to... Well, I don't know what it would lead to, but something grand. Arguably it would be the end of humanity as such; but we are so attached to it only because we've been this way for hundreds of thousand of years. I am all for ascension to greater beings. (Perhaps this is the danger onedreamer is talking about?) Or...

Then there's human cloning; if everyone would have a private replicator, it would be hard to enforce a law against cloning... Or for that matter, some maniac nuking the planet! And if on the other hand replicators were not common household items, it would lead to the birth of "Replicating Bureau"s, and that'd lead to... Well, bad things.

Sure, there's dangers enough, now that I think more about this.

@Mob: We'd simply fill the Sahara, oceans or maybe just space with solar and/or tidal power plants. Making uranium from rocks would ofc not work, since presumably it would use up as much energy as would be released from the fission process over time.

 

[onedreamer]

@onedreamer: I hope you can see the intentional similarities between the replication network and the internet, or other existing devices that can create near identical copies of things on a large scale for near-zero marginal cost (printing press/photocopiers, factories, etc). What I'm really saying is that these things have happened before, and have revolutionised various parts of our life. What the replicator scenario does is generalise this to pretty much any physical device.

This thing has happened already ? Then my thesis about none willing to share it is right, since I don't know of any such device, not even remotely close. Nuclear weapons, printing press, whatever else... what do they have in common with a device that replicates anything for free or almost ? Nothing. Apart from the fact that sharing such devices would defeat their advantage, can you imagine how it would destroy the already delicate balances of our economy ? Can you imagine how easy it would be for reckless people to duplicate horribly deadly weapons ?
Why did other inventions spread even though there was no willingness to spread them ? Well, because they weren't invented by a single person...

 

[onedreamer]

Pats right on this one. They dont really solve everything unless we have a limitless supply of energy on hand to take advantage of it.

if they duplicate anything, they clearly duplicate energy as well.

 

[Greizer85]

if they duplicate anything, they clearly duplicate energy as well.

That would lead to some interesting new theories of physics. Replicators as conceived in this example need matter and energy to operate on: they do not make things out of nothing. Hence my worry for the Earth looking like a giant mine shaft if replicating was easy and unregulated enough!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Nuclear weapons, printing press, whatever else... what do they have in common with a device that replicates anything for free or almost ? Nothing.

I assume you know what analogy means? Also, please indicate what the default Windows keyboard commands Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V do.

Apart from the fact that sharing such devices would defeat their advantage, can you imagine how it would destroy the already delicate balances of our economy ?

Is this backed by economic principles or just plain dismissal?

Can you imagine how easy it would be for reckless people to duplicate horribly deadly weapons ?

Tell me, do computer companies program their computers with tools that automatically create worms, viruses, and Trojans?

Why did other inventions spread even though there was no willingness to spread them ? Well, because they weren't invented by a single person...

And yet you seem to assume that the opposite is the case for a complicated machine such as the replicator.

 

[onedreamer]

Oh, and assuming such a ridiculously impossible device would be invented and ridiculously distributed to everyone for free.
I envision a totally opposite scenario to the one where people get together and share their stuff and duplicate it. We would have everyone lock as much as possible of their stuff so that it can't be replicated by anyone else, so that this stuff would have a value. Such an invention and stupid distribution of it would only exasperate private property and make rich people richer and poor people poorer, since rich people have access and own more stuff than poorer people in the beginning, they would secure more stuff from the poorer.

 

[Mise]

This thing has happened already ? Then my thesis about none willing to share it is right, since I don't know of any such device, not even remotely close. Nuclear weapons, printing press, whatever else... what do they have in common with a device that replicates anything for free or almost ? Nothing. Apart from the fact that sharing such devices would defeat their advantage, can you imagine how it would destroy the already delicate balances of our economy ? Can you imagine how easy it would be for reckless people to duplicate horribly deadly weapons ?
Why did other inventions spread even though there was no willingness to spread them ? Well, because they weren't invented by a single person...

You can create infinite copies of books, magazines, newspapers, music, films, TV programmes, computer games/programs, etc etc etc. The Replicator Scenario adds physical objects to that list.

 

[Greizer85]

Worms, viruses and trojans do exist though. If some crackpot cracked a replicator, the consequences could be disastrous...

 

[onedreamer]

And yet you seem to assume that the opposite is the case for a complicated machine such as the replicator.

yes, I did assume that, I wrote "anyone with a brain big enough". So instead of jumping on me and bordering insults with ludicrous arguments, you could have just objected that my assumption was unlikely to become real. Not that the rest of this thread contains anything likely to become real, for that matter.

 

[MobBoss]

if they duplicate anything, they clearly duplicate energy as well.

No, it takes energy to power the process. In Star Trek you dont see replicators in place of the Warp Engines do you?