Poor economics on front page?

Does the poor economics on the front page bother anybody else? I don't want to distract anybody from repstrapping, but "Wealth Without Money"? Having balderdash that prominently figured is not encouraging.

Okay, so the reason it's balderdash is that you're not likely to have wealth without money. Here's why. Not everybody does everything equally well. That's why we have machinists, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and programmers contributing to the project. No technology is going to change this nature of humans. Everybody is best off doing what they do best, and trading with others for everything else (Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage).

Once you have trade, you end up with money. Sure, you can trade without money; that's just barter. But barter is very inefficient. Money is a human invention that facilitates trade. Money is simply a commodity that everybody will accept in trade .... mostly because they know that everybody will accept it in trade (take THAT, gold bugs.)

So, even when everybody CAN reproduce their own replicator, it's likely that some people will do it better than others, and trade ... using money.

One thing that has puzzled me about this project is what exactly it means when it says it will "bring down global capitalism." I see this as a tool that may certainly lower the entry barrier to the wide world of capitalist manufacturing, but certainly won't eliminate the market. And even if this puts traditional manufacturing establishments out of business (which won't happen in the short term, there are still tons of commodities out there that this project can only dream about for now, from TVs to dish washers) that will simply open up the way for more capitalists who sell their ability to design household objects printable on the RepRap. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't see capitalism going away anytime soon. Humans are too clever and greedy for that.

Kyle

If you define "global capitalism" to mean the people who control production by virtue of having the capital to outlay to create new production capacity, which presently comes in very large chunks, then indeed RepRap will make life very difficult for such people just as the introduction of small, gasoline powered tractors in the first decade of the 20th century spelled the demise of the huge farms that had developed around the very large and technically sassy to keep running steam tractors and traction engines that increased farm productivity way past what small farmers using horse-drawn harvesting and harrowing equipment could achieve.

Yeah, I don't really like having our philosophical stuff right there on the homepage. I think that the main site should focus on the technological aspects, rather the philosophical and economic impacts of our project. First and foremost, we're a project to create an open source 3D printing system. We want this system to be as widespread as possible, and we think that designing a system that is capable of printing lots of its own parts is a good way to achieve that goal.

The ramifications of this type of project are very important. However, nobody can say for certain whether it will 'destroy capitalism'. If you've seen Dr. Bowyer give his presentation, which is very compelling, its clear that his intended meaning is that a technology such as RepRap that is cheap, and can grow exponentially has the potential to drastically change the world of manufacturing. That being said, I wouldn't mind moving that stuff off to a separate philosophy section.

I'd really hate to lose people who are interested in the project because we have a bit of a sensationalist title on our main page.

I really like the philosophy behind RepRap and similar projects. I actually chose repRap because many people here seemed to be aware of this very interesting change of precept.
Nevertheless, I may have a bias on this issue as I was primed on universal compilers through science articles and literature.
Maybe taking a more pedagogic approach, like introducing the philosophical aspects of this project in a separate section would be better, with hints towards it in the technical parts, wherever we make choices of a certain type for a technical solution instead of another (as in: why do you chose to make these parts out of Polymer and not buy the cartesian robot of the shelve?).

It could actually be a free discussion type of section, where people can expose their ideas or ask questions on why some technologies, while they may seem identical, have a fundamental difference....

my 2 cents

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2007 01:50PM by Fernando.

Adrian's philosophy on Reprap is, imo, central to the whole project. Otherwise, Darwin is simply another cartesian positioning engine that runs an extruder instead of a machine tool of one type or another. Take the concept away and you could as well consign Darwin to CNCZone as just another project.

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian's philosophy on Reprap is, imo, central to
> the whole project.
The philosophy -- making capitalism available to everyone -- is fine. I object to prominent poor economics. If the project supports one bad economic idea, what else has it gotten wrong? If the main concept "wealth without money" is wrong, then maybe a reprap doesn't make economic sense. Why should anybody worry about a replicator replicating itself if it's cheaper (in every sense) to just buy one?

I agree that at some point (probably in the next five years) corporations with huge resources will begin developing systems that are cheaper and more capable than Darwin. However, there are two reasons why I think that should not dissuade us from continuing to develop this project.

1. Those corporations are not, as of now, even THINKING about 3D printing as a potential mass market. Desktop Factory's printer, at $5,000 plus, is called revolutionary. We're talking $400 minus. That is huge, potentially world-changing. And even if the only end result of this project is bringing this idea to those corporations and letting them take it from there, I'd say it's worth it.

2. It is very likely, however, that this project WILL survive past the launch date of corporate competitors. Because even if 95% of users are happy with a cheap, commercial, hassle-free unit that "just works," there'll still be those 5% of users who want to be able to mod their unit however they feel like, and be able to contribute back to the public at large. And slowly, the changes these users make will morph the project into something ever improving, ever remaking itself. And that's something the commercial units will be completely incapable of. The people I'm talking about are the sort who use Linux even though it's a lot less convenient than Windows for some applications. And they're the sort who are involved with RepRap right now, even before it can, economically, justify itself.

Because a machine that can replicate itself can grow exponentially overtaking any mass produced system in a few iterations. It will also constantly evolve at a rate no design house could keep up with. Think of drug resistant bacteria for an analogy or the fact that Linux stands up well against a product made by the richest company in the world.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

I don't think the purpose of the RepRap is to overthrow the current manufacturing system. It will always be cheaper to manufacture items in bulk, and faster as well. I think the real philosophy behind the RepRap is the fact that it is designed to replicate exponentially. The RepRap is good for personal design and testing, not personal manufacturing. If you're trying to make something and have an idea for a part, then you could use the RepRap to make it, or if you have an invention a model can be made for testing. But I don't think people will ever start making all of their own home products. Replacement parts, maybe. But not the whole microwave.

Also, the RepRap cannot overthrow global capitalism, it might change the way it is viewed, but capitalism just means "An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive."

The RepRap may be able to change what the means of production is, but people by nature seek profit. That is the psychological cause of capitalism. For all the situations in which the benefits of using the RepRap are greater than those of other systems, it will be used. I have no way at present to really predict which situations those will be, but those outline above in this thread make sense, such as people wanting an intellectual, hands on modding challenge.

I hope this post helped, and didn't actually confuse the issue even more.

-Samuel

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2007 06:26PM by Samuel.

Okay, so reprap will present a strong threat to protectionism.

Actually, I don't like "wealth without money" either, because my personal definition of "wealth" is comparative. I make more/less or have more/fewer things than my neighbor, thus I am rich/poor. When you get right down to it, the poorest individual in a developed country, probably still enjoys resources that either King Henry VIII, or King Louis XIV would probably have quite happily killed for.

Personally, I think RepRap will initially be a fancy toy, but as everyone gets them, people will hold stuff produced from them in much the same light as most hold any serviceable, but very cheap, consumer goods. A reprap pair of shoes just won't say "money" the way a pair of traditionally manufactured pair do...even though the traditionally manufactured pair will probably use reprapped parts extensively for fit and comfort. (This assumes the availability of reprap will kill large scale manufacture of shoes. A likelihood in my opinion, as the poor will print a serviceable pair, and the affluent will likely gravitate to a fitted pair, which means a cobbler, not a factory.)

Something else to consider. Reprap gets compared to computers in its early stages, fairly often. I am writing this on a cheap(ish) computer, using a commercially available OS, that I (indirectly, it's OEM) paid for.
Shortly, I'll be typing away at another program, that I paid for.
Just because RepRap will allow easy replication doesn't kill markets. Some will buy the right to print out brand name items. Most will, I suspect.

RussNelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I object to prominent poor economics.

If I've read your posts correctly, you seem to object to the use of the phrase, "wealth without money". Your objection seems to come as a result of having insisted on interpreting the phrase in an absolute sense rather than in the relative sense which Adrian has used from time to time which is "wealth without MUCH money".

Looking at your whole initial post, however, I suspect that your objection to the sense of the reprap project is not limited to that phrase alone.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2007 12:23PM by Forrest Higgs.

I interpreted 'bring down global capitalism' to simply mean shift production from capital-intensive global corporations to more local, small-scale distributist businesses or individuals. If it was supposed to bring down capitalism altogether, 'global' wouldn't be there as a modifier.

As for 'wealth without money', I think it refers to RepRap's ability to make things (i.e. generate wealth) without the need to barter or buy. I did not interpret it to mean money would not exist.

For me "wealth without money" is a statement of purpose, a declaration of independence. It comes with the understanding that you are approaching it as a limit not as an actual goal. Its a motto and like a lot of mottos is hyperbole, when someone says "Scotland Forever" you would look like a fool if you started talking about the heat death of the universe.

It declares our priorities honestly and up front. Of course we understand that people will make money off of the technology, most of us wish them all the luck in the world.

You can parce the sentence as "opportunity without large amounts of capital" or "wealth without MUCH money" but that does not convey the very real underlieing suggestion that money and wealth are divorcable concepts. In the end that divorce is a (if not THE) major goal of the core members of this project. The idea that money is a wonderful tool but that it should not be a end unto itself.

At least that is my understanding.

Mike

The thoughts and ideas expressed in this post do not reflect those of my employer and are intended only as communications between individuals. Any attempts at implement are at your own risk

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 09:04PM by ohiomike.

Mike, my point is that wealth and money are separate concepts, yes, but are not divorcible. As a tagline, it's weak. Why put your worst foot forward?

I'd rather see "Bringing capitalism to the people". It's much more accurate, and not offensive to anybody. If you're a Marxist, then you can think of it as workers owning their tools. If you're a capitalist, then you want capitalism everywhere.

If it simply MUST say something like "wealth without money", I'd rather it say "wealth on a shoestring" if it means "wealth without MUCH money."

That asks the question, is "on a shoestring" a universal english statement?
I've heard of people missing idioms in a second language, while being quite fluent, and articulate, in that language.

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RussNelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I object to prominent poor economics.
>
> If I've read your posts correctly, you seem to
> object to the use of the phrase, "wealth without
> money". Your objection seems to come as a result
> of having insisted on interpreting the phrase in
> an absolute sense rather than in the relative
> sense which Adrian has used from time to time
> which is "wealth without MUCH money".

If I've gotten it wrong, then I expect other people will get it wrong. Since we know the phrase is buggy, why not use a different one? "wealth without MUCH money" would be perfectly fine. Or even "Democratic Capitalism" or "Capitalism for the people."

> Looking at your whole initial post, however, I
> suspect that your objection to the sense of the
> reprap project is not limited to that phrase
> alone.

I object to the idea that the reprap will "bring down global capitalism." That's just foolishness, when the reprap is an example of capitalism: privately owned investment in productive equipment. Plus it's unnecessarily divisive. It drags in a totally unnecessary leftist stance. I agree that a philosophy is necessary, otherwise why bother making the device replicate itself? The philosophy should be based on what the device encourages: the freedom to make the things you want.

RussNelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I've gotten it wrong, then I expect other
> people will get it wrong.
>
Aside from Adrian dithering a couple of times between "Wealth without money" and "Wealth without MUCH money", I think that you are maybe the first person to throw much emotional energy into the "issue", if that is what it is.
>
> I object to the idea that the reprap will "bring
> down global capitalism." That's just foolishness,
> when the reprap is an example of capitalism:
> privately owned investment in productive
> equipment. Plus it's unnecessarily divisive. It
> drags in a totally unnecessary leftist stance. I
> agree that a philosophy is necessary, otherwise
> why bother making the device replicate itself?
> The philosophy should be based on what the device
> encourages: the freedom to make the things you
> want.
>
I see that you have several objections to what you perceive as the ideological stance of the project.

If you want to go completely incandescent, you can drop by the background page, if you haven't already, at...

[reprap.org]

Adrian even talks about Marx and Engels there. Of more use might be your dropping by the "Philosophy" and "Documentation" pages. There is a LOT of food for thought there.

The point is that there are a variety of ways to look at the implications of generalised, quasi-self replicating machines and their impacts on human society. Yours is just one.

People get excited by RepRap for all sorts of reasons and have all sorts of motives for trying to advance the state of the technology. We need all the creative people we can get to make that happen. Demanding that some sort of politically correct, ideological straightjacket be draped over the effort in order to avoid offending, which is what you seem to be demanding, just isn't the way to make that happen.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2007 12:21PM by Forrest Higgs.

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
> I see that you have several objections to what you
> perceive as the ideological stance of the
> project.

No, worse, I see an ideological stance which is independent of the goals of the project.

> Adrian even talks about Marx and Engels there.

Yes, he talks about them being mostly wrong. If even a poor person can afford a RepRap, how is there any truth to what Marx says?

> People get excited by RepRap for all sorts of
> reasons and have all sorts of motives for trying
> to advance the state of the technology.

Exactly my point. So why offend some of them without reason?

I'm with RussNelson on this one. I think "Capitalism for the people" would be much less controversial while still getting the point across. In fact, I'd argue it fits the project even better - when I hear "Wealth without money" it leaves me scratching my head (yes, I understand after it's been explained to me, but you can't expect first-time visitors to the site to get the reference) but the meaning of "Capitalism for the people" is immediately apparent and seems to fit the project well. I am also hard pressed to see how people of any idealogical persuasion could find it offensive.

Well, as best as I remember events Dr Bowyer cooked up the whole notion of the RepRap project. Because of that, in my opinion at least, he has the final say as to what shows up on the project website.

That said, if it were my concept and website, I think I might inquire as to what part of the First Amendment that you don't understand and if that didn't make an impression invite you to start your own project.

For myself, I haven't much patience with people who allow their semantic sensitivities to affect their adoption or rejection of good technological concepts. I'd be working on RepRap regardless of whether Dr. Bowyer were an ex-Sendero Luminoso terrorist or a current Aryan Nations member. The techology's that important to me.

As it is, the only strongly held committment that Dr. Bowyer has that I know of is to horsemanship. Mind, where I live on what we affectionately know as the "Left Coast" many would seek to censure him strongly solely for that committment.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2007 04:29PM by Forrest Higgs.

Forrest, I'm not trying to turn this into a holy battle. I apologize if this is just me, but in my mind you seem to be being more aggressive than this issue really warrants.

Obviously I don't object to this phrasing so strongly that it dissuades me from working on the project - otherwise I wouldn't be here right now posting this! And once the exact meaning has been explained, I don't object to the philosophy behind the phrase at all. My only point was that it would be a shame to lose a potential team member because of a misunderstanding conveyed by unclear language on the front page.

Kyle Corbitt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forrest, I'm not trying to turn this into a holy
> battle. I apologize if this is just me, but in my
> mind you seem to be being more aggressive than
> this issue really warrants.
>
I live on the Left Coast. Holy Wars are fought on a daily basis over distinctions so silly as to have boggled the mind of Jonathan Swift and are the order of the day here. I loathe seeing that kind of thing seeping into RepRap.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2007 05:20PM by Forrest Higgs.

Actually, seeing as this is an open forum, I'm very surprised at how few posts have poor English or flame-war content. It is rather hard to find such places these days. I'm not saying that it's alright to have such things on the reprap forums, its just that I think everyone has been remarkably sportsmanlike so far. Keep up the good work.

And let's not invoke Godwin's law just yet, shall we?

-Samuel

I'd go for "Capitolism of the people, by the people, and for the people.", but I live in the South, and might get lynched by some of my neighbors...I just don't know which ones. :>

Something else to consider. This project, while global in scope, is based out of Bath, England. I doubt the sensibilities of a bunch of "former colonials" was high on anyones mind when this got started.

A side effect of an odd catchphrase could also make people curious. I found this site by way of a search for CNC plans, but stayed because this looked better. I must say, I caught the idea of the catchphrase quickly, even as I decided it was a fallacy, (see my statement that wealth is measured by comparison to others, on page one.)

Quite frankly, I would expect "for the people" to be as potentially divisive as "without money". Too bad "Building a better tomorrow" it taken. :>

Forrest, everyone will advise you not to mix causes. If you're a La Leche League Leader (more likely your wife, as mine was), they strictly tell you not to get involved in other causes because of your public face as an LLL leader. Richard Stallman has a separate page for his leftist advocacy (http://www.stallman.org/) which is completely separate from his Free Software Foundation advocacy.

The problem with mixing causes is that you restrict your volunteers to only those people who agree with every cause you espouse. Feel free to lack patience with people who don't work on projects which espouse two causes: one they are hostile to and one they agree with. Regardless of your lack of patience with them, they go away and don't come back. This is harmful. And there's no problem solved by offending them.

RussNelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with mixing causes is that you
> restrict your volunteers to only those people who
> agree with every cause you espouse.

Which is precisely what you've proposed doing. I'm done with this thread.

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RussNelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem with mixing causes is that you
> > restrict your volunteers to only those people who
> > agree with every cause you espouse.
>
> Which is precisely what you've proposed doing.
> I'm done with this thread.

What *I* am proposing??? I think you're confused. Let me try to straighten you out. You're saying that it's okay for the reprap project to appeal to ONLY 1) people interested in a self-replicating replicator, AND 2) leftists who want to "bring down global capitalism" and who want "wealth without money". I'm saying that the reprap project should appeal to EVERYONE interested in a self-replicating replicator.

Seems to me that the second group is larger, brings more resources to bear, and is more likely to succeed than the first.

i think the best thing would be to email Dr. Bowyer personally with a polite complaint. he is technically 'benevolent dictator for life' in addition to being an all around nice guy. i'm sure that if you point out that his hyperbolic mission statement may be keeping people away, then he'd probably agree to change it to something a bit less threatening like:

'covering the world in grey goo, one RepRap at a time'

or

"we're out to destroy capitalism, seriously."

(just teasing with those two lines...

One of the greatest pleasures of running the RepRap project is that it has caused lots of people to accuse me of, or to congratulate me for, being left wing. This makes people who know me fall about laughing, or beat me about the head with my own copy of the Daily Telegraph, according to taste.

I also find it interesting that people seem unable even to imagine a world without money. And yet money occurs nowhere in the whole of the rest of biology, even though there is plenty of bartering going on there.

Money is not a token of value, as most suppose, but a token of trust. If I say to my friend, "Can you feed the cat while I'm on holiday?" I have a high expectation that he will, and he similarly has a high expectation that, one day when he has flu, I'll take his dog for a walk. No money need change hands. What money does is to tokenise the trust between friends and thus allow it to extend to strangers. That is why it is the single most important human invention of all (discounting language, which all the evidence points to having evolved, not been deliberately invented).

So why - aside from the human stuff - is there no money in nature? It seems to me that there are two possible reasons:

1. The mutation never happened, just as the mutation for making bone out of diamond fibre never happened.

2. It is not robust against perfect forgery in an evolutionary arms race.

I have no idea which of those is the reason, but I am tolerably sure that - even if it did evolve - it would ultimately fail as an evolutionarily-stable strategy under Reason 2.

And when anyone can make anything, perfect forgery is trivial. I have never seen it, but it would be interesting to take a look at the graph of credit-card fraud as a fraction of gross-planetary-product over the last thirty years...

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2008 10:07AM by Adrian Bowyer.

---

best wishes

Adrian

[reprap.org]
[reprapltd.com]