sophie
Break My Heart
We could go into a total credits-based system as in the Star Wars universe. That way money is intangible and tied to you personally rather than physical paper money. There's no way to counterfeit or replicate at all.
Star Trek Replicators
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
How could the matter hold all the energy used to create it?
You said "every country". So it counts not only but as well
I understand, still energy and matter would not be infinite. So there is still a hierarchy of moneymaking, companies etc. to regulate IMO. If we hold on to a free market that is.
Uh, there were physical dataries as well, and they were extremely popular during the period of time that the films cover.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If replicators ever become reality in the sense that they'll be able to produce whatever you want, given energy, energy will become the new money.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm pretty sure that money would still be money. Energy would be paid for in money. Services would be paid for in money. Sexual favours would be paid for in money. Or drugs. But anyway that's not really what I meant this thread to be about.
I don't think replicators as described here would stifle innovation. People doing innovation are quite often not doing it for the money (just look at a typical grad student's pay). There might be even more innovation, because all the budget issues go away.
But I think in the case that energy is not much of an issue (if the replicator could convert matter into energy and energy into matter, getting enough energy would just be a matter of throwing enough old stuff in) the development of dinished products would suffer. I would imagine that programming the replicator (or whatever you call the process of telling it to make new stuff) would not be an easy thing. And those who could do it, would be more concerned in developing what they need and in a way that they can use it, and not so much concerned with the ease of use for others.
It would be a bit like open-source software: You can get it for free, but you might have to learn quite a bit about how to actually install and use it. And sometimes you have to live with a piece of software that was deemed to be good enough by its developer, but what you couldn't call finished. Now in the real world open-source programmers need money too, and so they're hired to provide support for their software. But that wouldn't work in the replicator scenario, because how do you convince someone to make something you need, if you have nothing to give him, because he can make anything he needs himself?
But I think in the case that energy is not much of an issue (if the replicator could convert matter into energy and energy into matter, getting enough energy would just be a matter of throwing enough old stuff in) the development of dinished products would suffer. I would imagine that programming the replicator (or whatever you call the process of telling it to make new stuff) would not be an easy thing. And those who could do it, would be more concerned in developing what they need and in a way that they can use it, and not so much concerned with the ease of use for others.
It would be a bit like open-source software: You can get it for free, but you might have to learn quite a bit about how to actually install and use it. And sometimes you have to live with a piece of software that was deemed to be good enough by its developer, but what you couldn't call finished. Now in the real world open-source programmers need money too, and so they're hired to provide support for their software. But that wouldn't work in the replicator scenario, because how do you convince someone to make something you need, if you have nothing to give him, because he can make anything he needs himself?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
But then you could easily replicate money and thus any sort of physical embodiment of "money" would become worthless. I'm just saying that the virtual "credits" in people's accounts would be tied to energy reserves somehow.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I agree.
If replicators as described would exist, then the price of any sort of physical possession would drop significantly. I mean, unless the government implemented very strict patent-like "you can't make a copy of a taco/ferrari unless you pay royalties" laws, then you could pretty much have anything you wanted, provided you had access to a replicator. Depending on how complicated and commonplace the machines were, the price of everything would drop significantly.
I think people would keep on being innovative. With replicators around, your invention would probably not lead to riches - but in a way you'd be pretty rich already.. I mean.. with every physical possession dropping in price dramatically, perhaps the acquisition of wealth would cease to be the main driving force of human civilization, and people would invent cool things for fun, the betterment of their lives, the betterment of the human species, respect, and so on.
If you're a physicist, were educated in the field, and worked in it all your life, you'd be driven to attempt to invent new cool stuff no matter what. It's your field - you love it, and if you can invent a faster than light drive, or a better toaster - that would lead to a lot of satisfaction. Money isn't everything.. Accomplishing something can be pretty rewarding.
Replicators would likely lead to a frenzy of new innovations as opposed to the opposite scenario, cause of all the new and exciting doors it would open to innovators.
Mise
isle of lucy
Hmm, good point. I guess a lot does depend on how easy it is to make new things on the replicators. I think, though, that there is a lot of genuinely good quality innovation going on on, for example, mobile devices, even though they're not very easy to program. iPhone and Android apps are usually made by either individuals or small developers, and are generally of good quality; indeed, even on Android, which doesn't have the stifling "quality control" hoops that iPhone developers have to go through, the apps are genuinely good...
Also, there may be a thousand things that you want in your life, but you spend 80% of your time just doing a handful of things. And there may be a thousand crappy software out there, but you only need 1 to do the job. So it doesn't take a whole lot to make your life better.
Ahh, I see, you mean the cost of services, for example, would be massively correlated with the price of energy? Yeah, that makes sense.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
TheAlamo
Prince
No, it takes energy to power the process. In Star Trek you dont see replicators in place of the Warp Engines do you?
Keep replicating batteries. Problem solved.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
A rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics would reveal a major problem with that plan.
holy king
Deity
no, we can replicate energy.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
More than needed to replicate? Doubtful.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Not at all. You said yourself that the replicator is powered by energy.....
......soooooo, where do we get the energy.....?
You can't replicate energy. You still have to produce that. Say, with an antimatter reactor. And then you need some way to get the energy from the reactor to the replicator. You can replicate the power lines, but it will take good old fashioned elbow grease to run the power lines. After that, you need somebody to program the replicator with mass/energy patterns.......
You get the idea. Human beings will always be doing work. Forever.
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Don't you people read what I write? Energy would be of no concern. We could pick a continent and strip it down to a few kms of crust; all that rock would be used to make space-borne solar panels, shot into space using replicated rockets. There could be a billion of these, or however many are needed really. True, we'd need a way to beam the energy down to Earth, but I think there would be plenty of incentives now to develop that, no?
Later on, when we could drag asteroids into orbit, we'd fill up the portion of Earth we tore up, and replicate preserved species of flora and fauna on it, making it good as new.
Alternatively, we could fill the seas with tidal power plants and the Sahara with solar panels. However much energy is needed, should dictate the plan really.
The replicators would need to be household or at the very least community devices. If they were operated on the national level, the replication rights of undesirables could be conveniently curbed according to the whims of the rulers... There are many dangers here: what if some mad dictator replicates a clone army or an army of robots, once they're advanced enough? Ofc the replicators would have some choices restricted, but humans are pretty good at hacking things, and world domination tends to be a good motive.
As I said, services would still be needed and would likely form the new economy. The rich could afford continous company of prostitutes, singers, circus dancers, hair dressers, etc. How, you ask? With service credits. Those you'd get for providing services yourself - and for patenting intellectual property, if it were still allowed. A song that you compose, for example, is a non-tangible. It can't itself be replicated - only a device that stores it. And for every listening, or for the right to listen, you'd have to pay in credits. I'm not sure if this is a good thing really - a new form of riches would encourage innovation, but at the same time the bad side effects of greed and riches would be preserved, perhaps even aggravated: envy, hatred, discrimination, the works. It would be better if you only get credits for services that you yourself perform. So a singer could charge for his/her gigs (or ofc could choose not to), but not get any royalties. Frankly most artistic types would be fine with this: money is a secondary motivation for them already; they do what they do out of a compelling need to express themselves, and/or for a desire to have fun and to share it with other people. With the end of the material rat race, these qualities would be greatly encouraged and amplified.
Edit: As for the programming of the replicators, it would likely be automatic: they would "scan" the item(s) you want to be replicated, and then do it with minimum possible energy. Once an item were replicated once, its pattern would be preserved in a global database and could be picked out by anyone, so you wouldn't need an actual item to make a copy out of. Certain materials couldn't be replicated (or "enefactured"), namely radioactive materials, non-stunning, massively effective weapons, biological agents, and so on. However the surveillance of rogue replicators could prove to be an insurmountable problem: if e.g. North Korea hacked their replicator and manufactured enough nukes, we couldn't invade them... Then they'd make an army of clones (most likely candidate: Dear Leader! Or maybe some braver soul could be sacrificed...
), and that's that, if we don't make one to counter them. Hmm, this would make for a good scifi novel... Probably already done to death though (and not just in Star Trek); I don't read much scifi at all.
Later on, when we could drag asteroids into orbit, we'd fill up the portion of Earth we tore up, and replicate preserved species of flora and fauna on it, making it good as new.
Alternatively, we could fill the seas with tidal power plants and the Sahara with solar panels. However much energy is needed, should dictate the plan really.
The replicators would need to be household or at the very least community devices. If they were operated on the national level, the replication rights of undesirables could be conveniently curbed according to the whims of the rulers... There are many dangers here: what if some mad dictator replicates a clone army or an army of robots, once they're advanced enough? Ofc the replicators would have some choices restricted, but humans are pretty good at hacking things, and world domination tends to be a good motive.
As I said, services would still be needed and would likely form the new economy. The rich could afford continous company of prostitutes, singers, circus dancers, hair dressers, etc. How, you ask? With service credits. Those you'd get for providing services yourself - and for patenting intellectual property, if it were still allowed. A song that you compose, for example, is a non-tangible. It can't itself be replicated - only a device that stores it. And for every listening, or for the right to listen, you'd have to pay in credits. I'm not sure if this is a good thing really - a new form of riches would encourage innovation, but at the same time the bad side effects of greed and riches would be preserved, perhaps even aggravated: envy, hatred, discrimination, the works. It would be better if you only get credits for services that you yourself perform. So a singer could charge for his/her gigs (or ofc could choose not to), but not get any royalties. Frankly most artistic types would be fine with this: money is a secondary motivation for them already; they do what they do out of a compelling need to express themselves, and/or for a desire to have fun and to share it with other people. With the end of the material rat race, these qualities would be greatly encouraged and amplified.
Edit: As for the programming of the replicators, it would likely be automatic: they would "scan" the item(s) you want to be replicated, and then do it with minimum possible energy. Once an item were replicated once, its pattern would be preserved in a global database and could be picked out by anyone, so you wouldn't need an actual item to make a copy out of. Certain materials couldn't be replicated (or "enefactured"), namely radioactive materials, non-stunning, massively effective weapons, biological agents, and so on. However the surveillance of rogue replicators could prove to be an insurmountable problem: if e.g. North Korea hacked their replicator and manufactured enough nukes, we couldn't invade them... Then they'd make an army of clones (most likely candidate: Dear Leader! Or maybe some braver soul could be sacrificed...
), and that's that, if we don't make one to counter them. Hmm, this would make for a good scifi novel... Probably already done to death though (and not just in Star Trek); I don't read much scifi at all.
Mise
isle of lucy
Guys, it's great that you're coming up with roadblocks and boundaries, but don't just stop there, take it further. Instead of saying, "energy would be a HUGE concern, therefore everything would depend on energy," and then just stopping there, carry on, and say, "well, what if energy wasn't a problem? What if we found a way of drawing limitless energy from, say, a [wiki]Dyson Sphere[/wiki] or two?" Move it forward. Don't just stop at the roadblocks, try and see what would happen if those roadblocks didn't exist -- we'd then uncover more revelations, like the enormous growth in services Greizer and others are talking about.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
I've solved the energy problem...look at the PN....it's powered by a standard socket.
Abaddon
Deity
First, Power would be needed.
Then we would replicate enough solar panels and get them to space so that enegry is no longer needed.
However.
There are still a zillion and one things that a replicator can't do.. a thing called "work"
Sure you can feed yourself for life.. but what happens when something breaks? Sure you can replicate the item.. but you still need someone to install/fit it.
That person needs something, or they won't do it.
You need something that person needs, or they have no incentive to do it.
They need to be taught those skills.
The world economy shifts, many many things in life are now forgotten (farming!) but since people still need services, they will still need to work etc.
Life won't change much..
Then we would replicate enough solar panels and get them to space so that enegry is no longer needed.
However.
There are still a zillion and one things that a replicator can't do.. a thing called "work"
Sure you can feed yourself for life.. but what happens when something breaks? Sure you can replicate the item.. but you still need someone to install/fit it.
That person needs something, or they won't do it.
You need something that person needs, or they have no incentive to do it.
They need to be taught those skills.
The world economy shifts, many many things in life are now forgotten (farming!) but since people still need services, they will still need to work etc.
Life won't change much..
Abaddon
Deity
Unless we invent the perfect robot.. then humanity will transend into a higher state.
