Talk-Polywell.org

Cory Doctorow has a dark view of creative destruction:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 17406.html

I do not. The reason? I present this:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2 ... 373c4b50b9

My just purchased Precision Scale Models HO scale New Haven Railroad I5. marked on the box #5 of 56. This could just as easily have been any of an inifinite variety of things that people make for other people to enjoy that are not fabbed and mass produced:
http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/

http://www.waynethedane.bizland.com/

http://shop.orangecountychoppers.com/

So what would people be willing to pay for? Greater depth of focus?

Safety? - Would you buy an airplane ticket for an airplane built out of garage parts?

Quality control? Art goods? Hand made stuff? A real Rolex?

There are all kinds of reasons to buy stuff not based on price alone.

And then there are personal services.

MSimon wrote:So what would people be willing to pay for? Greater depth of focus?

Safety? - Would you buy an airplane ticket for an airplane built out of garage parts?

Quality control? Art goods? Hand made stuff? A real Rolex?

There are all kinds of reasons to buy stuff not based on price alone.

Are you saying something about the quality of my photography?
Anyway, my point was that there will always be things that can't be made in a totally automated environment or on a 3D printer. You are always going to need people who can make stuff, by hand or using a Bridgeport and lathe regardless of how good the fabs get. What creative destruction is about is always having a bigger toolbox to play with and as far as I am conderned that is a good thing.

JCCarlton,

Yeah. I was just poking a little fun. You are correct though. A bigger tool box is a good thing.

BTW live performances are where bands make their money. Recordings are just to get the audience familiar with a band's repertoire. So who makes money from recorded music? Record companies mostly. And those companies are greatly annoyed now that you don't need a pressing plant to reproduce recordings.

The bands are no worse off than they used to be. In fact bands are better off because record companies are no longer the gatekeeper.

MSimon wrote:JCCarlton,

Yeah. I was just poking a little fun. You are correct though. A bigger tool box is a good thing.

BTW live performances are where bands make their money. Recordings are just to get the audience familiar with a band's repertoire. So who makes money from recorded music? Record companies mostly. And those companies are greatly annoyed now that you don't need a pressing plant to reproduce recordings.

The bands are no worse off than they used to be. In fact bands are better off because record companies are no longer the gatekeeper.

A friend of mine made this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgw54_uGDDg
It looks much better on his projection wall, but the fact is that you don't need massive amounts of equipment to make quality stuff like they used to.

Jccarlton wrote:This could just as easily have been any of an inifinite variety of things that people make for other people to enjoy that are not fabbed and mass produced

Regardless of an infinite variety of non-commodity goods where workmanship trumps mass production, its still a corner case. Its like buying an original artwork or limited edition manual print as opposed to a mass produced print of the same. In the balance, not everyone is interested enough, for every piece of artwork they like, to afford the higher cost of the originals versus the marginal cost of a mass produced item. (From the article (I haven't read the book yet)) the issue presented is that the "business" of mass producing goods is screwed, since by its nature that someone else can also mass produce the same goods, such that the costs spiral down.

[I'll add...] The presumed knock on effect from this is "traditional" mass production jobs are lost - hence the higher unemployment. However I do predict a growing market for hand-made goods - but even those might be made cheaper overseas.

MSimon wrote:Would you buy an airplane ticket for an airplane built out of garage parts? Quality control?

Airplanes won't be built from garage parts. They'll be built in a factory by an industrial fabber producing a composite material from individual high purity element streams throughout the entire structure in one pass.

Jccarlton wrote:Anyway, my point was that there will always be things that can't be made in a totally automated environment or on a 3D printer.

How long is your "always"? When it comes to technology, its a bit tricky saying "always". Look how far we have come in 100 years and accelerating. Human nature on the other hand, such as a preference for artwork originals, has remained fairly static. When I consider "always" I try to consider what might be possible 1000 years from now. Where might nano/MEMS self-assembly be by then?

Jccarlton wrote: You are always going to need people who can make stuff, by hand or using a Bridgeport and lathe regardless of how good the fabs get.

Yes, but what about the people who can't make stuff by hand, who have lose their jobs due to the shift in where commoditised mass produced items are produced.

BenTC wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Anyway, my point was that there will always be things that can't be made in a totally automated environment or on a 3D printer.

How long is your "always"? When it comes to technology, its a bit tricky saying "always". Look how far we have come in 100 years and accelerating. Human nature on the other hand, such as a preference for artwork originals, has remained fairly static. When I consider "always" I try to consider what might be possible 1000 years from now. Where might nano/MEMS self-assembly be by then?

Jccarlton wrote: You are always going to need people who can make stuff, by hand or using a Bridgeport and lathe regardless of how good the fabs get.

Yes, but what about the people who can't make stuff by hand, who have lose their jobs due to the shift in where commoditised mass produced items are produced.

I am involved with making stuff for a living. As a technology geek and Science fiction fan I have been paying very close to the developments in this area for a long time. I work in an outfit where we primarily make prototypes for a kind of machine, mass spectrometers, that doesn't have huge market anyway. Does it really pay to have the kind of programing required for a part where you only make one copy? The limits for nano/MEMS self assembly are the same as CNC and I still see a Bridgeport in every shop I run into even in the CNC world. In fact there has been a quiet revolution in the machine tool world that nobody pays much attention too. As to the people who can't make stuff, who knows what they can do? I don't, and nobody else does, but many of them will not sit on their butts and we will get a bunch of new stuff out of it. Ecomomics is dynamic and chaotic. You cannot just analyze things statically like Mr. Doctorow is doing.

The Luddites had the same problem.

MSimon wrote:The Luddites had the same problem.

True. Could not see the forest because they spent so much time burning the trees.

JC, sweet man, a streamlined 4-6-4 NH, as seen about 1933-1939? No?

I'm about to get into NN3, though Ive been saying that for a while, but those Markilin mechanisms and brass and pewter bodies are real sweet these days.

I sent you a friend request, I see that you are into Baen Books, John Ringo and David Weber?

Roger wrote:JC, sweet man, a streamlined 4-6-4 NH, as seen about 1933-1939? No?

I'm about to get into NN3, though Ive been saying that for a while, but those Markilin mechanisms and brass and pewter bodies are real sweet these days.

I sent you a friend request, I see that you are into Baen Books, John Ringo and David Weber?

New Haven I5 1937. This is the best brass model I have seen, let alone owned. Those pics don't even come close to doing it justice. It runs as good as it looks. I'm going have build a train worthy of it and join the local club so I can run it.

More on the quiet industrial revolution:
http://blog.american.com/?p=8593


It would be interesting to see how the labor division breaks down between 1945 and 2008