3D Printing

Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons

post-capitalism with 3D printing
Comments (21)
  1. C C Coffin says:

    “When the cost of producing an additional good or service is nearly zero,
    products become available at next to no cost, profits evaporate and the
    exchange of property in markets shuts down.”

    Wat?

    1. caseyczarnomski says:

      For example, I have a 3d printer. Initial investment done. I recycle some plastic and make a filament to use for printer material. I run my printer on the solar panels on my roof, so the operation of printing is free. My only cost is the printer. That means marginal cost is almost free. The only thing left of value is the time to print. Why would I go to the store to buy something when I can make it nearly free myself? Bye-bye Wal-Mart.

  2. Jason Simpson says:

    Great story! A must read!

  3. John Galt says:

    Total communist garbage. The same crap we have been hearing for the last 100 years with a new technology flair. Ask Venezuela how a system “not based on scarcity” is working out for them! Capitalist scarcity is not Amazon being out of a widget. Scarcity is everyone in the world wanting everything but there are not enough widgets for everyone. Hence, the “invisible hand” moves prices up so only those who really want it get it and therefore there are enough. There are more holes in this argument than Swiss cheese.

    1. Ashley Banks says:

      Mr. Galt! I would think that, if your name implies your Libertarian philosophies, you’d agree with 50% of the ideas put forth in this article, particularly those positing a decentralized way of life as enabled by emerging technologies. Why not take the ideas you do agree with and push aside those you don’t, rather than disregarding the entire article as a whole? That would give what you say greater credence and suggest that you possess “Reason”.

      1. Pfc. Parts says:

        So Ashley? In your world a person just needs to be half right to be all right? The rest of us should just work out the details on our own? We should openly embrace this idea, even though it’s totally bogus, to make the author feel good? Is this like giving all school children a passing grade so nobody is disappointed?

        1. caseyczarnomski says:

          Wow, because only libertarian views can be right? Ashly said nothing about being only half right. She argues in favor of working with what you understand, and ignoring what you don’t. It isn’t about giving someone a warm fuzzy feeling. I doubt the author cares. Seeing as how he has a good job at The democratic governance unit of the United Nations development program.

      2. John Galt says:

        No, I do not agree with 50% of it or even 1%. Paragraph by paragraph it is wrong.

        1. caseyczarnomski says:

          So the rest of the world disagrees with you. The UN is implementing this plan, the EU is implementing this plan, China is implementing this plan, and the millions of people here in the US who lose their jobs to automation every year are seeing it. Ignoring it won’t protect you. In fact you will have a hard time making it through the disruption, if you refuse to open your eyes and prepare for it.

    2. Jerry Hatrick says:

      Ah you’re one of those Scientologists that believes in “limited govt” and free guns. Got it.

    3. caseyczarnomski says:

      If by “this argument”, you mean your comment. Then I would have to agree. The commons predates the market system by at least a thousand years. Communism is only a couple hundred years old. Scarcity is going away. Spitting curses such as “communism” at things that obviously are not, does you a disservice.

  4. Pfc. Parts says:

    Next up: “The Tragedy of the Collaborative Commons” by Garrett Hardin, who proved John Maynard Keynes was an idiot, along with Karl Marx and the rest of the morons who believe giving people cheap access to unnecessary plastic objects will magically turn the world into a utopia; if that were true the “Revolution” would have been ushered in by Woolworths.

    Your theory of zero marginal cost fails simply because in that economy the value of the original goes to infinity as the cost of reproducing it goes to zero. It’s economics. You should study it.

    1. caseyczarnomski says:

      You’re seriously deluded if you think 3d printing is only plastics. By your definition of economics, the music industry must be raking in the cash on all their originals. But seeing as how you have it completely ass backwards, your definition is in need of a lot of work. Open your eyes and take a look at the world around you.

  5. Titus Corleone says:

    Great little Marxist rant! Good going… why don’t you just destroy 3D printing before it ever get’s going! Okay, let’s see if I can help you back from Progressive fantasy land… probably not, but I’ll try:
    The first step in the ascendance of 3D Printing will be the convergence of photostatic and SLA technologies. When that is invented and refined, 3D printing will be as fast as the replicators on Star Trek.
    Step 2 will be the introduction of the entire periodic table into the printable medium.
    Step 3 will be distribution of that technology to the world, after which… the distributed manufacturing model will slowly but surely occur…
    HOWEVER… at every step of the way, all of this will be entirely dependent upon the gathering of materials on industrial basis, mass manufacturing, Supply Chain Distribution, and Venture Capital to fund start-ups… precisely similar to the western economic model that gave rise to technology in the first place, and that model is exactly what currently exists today.
    Okay… Think hard now… What’s it called? Can you think?
    It is called Capitalism and Free Market enterprise silly! You really need to have the Epiphany… The Marxist/Progressive culture rammed a lot of crap into your head in college, and it is not reality. In fact, wherever it has been applied in the real world – it has been enormously destructive – spelling the end of freedom – NOT THE BEGINNING OF IT! I know. I’ve been there. I’ve seen the results of that horrible mistake you are blathering about.
    Welcome to the real world. Capitalism is the best model for the advancement of mankind since the dawn of civilization. Ride the transom to reality my friend!
    TC

    1. Mike Molitch-Hou says:

      What I appreciate about this comment, over the others, is the approach: Looking to understand the author’s mindset and pulling him towards your own beliefs, an idea that two people can see one another’s points of view. This is more effective and productive than merely berating someone for their POV.

      1. Mike Molitch-Hou says:

        Even if it comes across a lil patronizing.

    2. caseyczarnomski says:

      The epiphany to be had is in fact yours. You are stuck in the past and unable to see the future. Capitalism is on a downward slide. The first step in 3d printing isn’t the convergence of 2 technologies. There are new and better 3d printing technologies coming foreword all the time. For example CLIP technology, and printers that can build cars and houses. Step 2, forget the periodic table of elements. We are redesigning molecules and improving on the periodic table already. Step 3, the distributed manufacturing model is already occurring everywhere in the world. These printers are not dependent on gathering of materials on an industrial basis. There are many instances of people using local aggregate, and recycled materials doing their 3d printing. Venture Capital is not required. Did you even read this article? Have you ever even heard of kickstarter? Here’s a real kicker… “western economic model that gave rise to technology in the first place”. Really? Capitalism is responsible for Hammers, Screws, Saws? I’m pretty sure those existed before the 1700’s when capitalism was invented. Just because it dominates the market now doesn’t mean it always has or always will. Once again, if you actually read this article or any of the reference material you would already understand this. By the way college is a place where people get an education. That you reference it in such a way makes me seriously question your level of education. These ideas aren’t Marxist/Progressive, they are democratic. True democracy, not some farce of a republic. Our republic was great, but it hasn’t changed with the times. It is way too slow to stay relevant. There is no way for the government to keep up, so our lead economists are recommending moving to monopolies. Is that the amazing free market your talking about? Or is it the free market of the big companies to buy votes, and sue any competition out of existence? Unless we change with the times, your “end of freedom” is straight ahead.

      1. Mike Molitch-Hou says:

        I love your way of thinking! What’s your background, etc.?

        1. caseyczarnomski says:

          Going back to school after a 15 year break reading about science and technology. Now that I’m confident about reading the trends, I’m persuing molecular nanorobotics via mechanical/industrial engineering. I want to use printers to manufacture, and share the designs. Thanks for writing some excellent articles, they are always a pleasure to read.

          1. Mike Molitch-Hou says:

            Thanks! Would you be interested in writing any of your own insight pieces for the site?

  6. Mike Molitch-Hou says:

    One threat to the Collaborative Commons is the Transpacific Partnership and Obama securing Fast Track Authority. If the TPP is put into practice, the jurisdiction of multinationals would supersede the jurisdiction of national governments and their citizens so that, if a country’s laws violate the TPP, a company can take them to a separate tribunal and sue them. I think something like this has happened in Australia, when the country to place restrictions on cigarettes and the tobacco companies sued to overturn this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *