What's illegal about downloading the software for a spare part ??? You mean illegal from a copyright perspective??? - If that's what you mean I can't really see how it is.. how can you copyright a static shape?? Let's say you want to print a washer.. you telling me that's illegal because someone has copyrighted the washer? Makes no sense. Even if that's what you are implying how would you enforce that copyright ?? What impact has copyright had on the film and entertainment industry?? The government has been lobbied for years trying to enforce tighter laws and more prosecutions for copyright breaches and for the most part it's been a spectacular failure.
They'll make it illegal, I'm sure. You'll probably have to pay a reg fee to get access to thousands of spare parts.
The beautiful thing about the technology is that there really is no ceiling on what can be done with it.
This is wrong. There is always a limit to any technology. Be it light bulbs, toys, cars, trains..... everything has a limit.
. you talking about the market having other ideas? Well that doesn't really matter does it? The 'market' becomes irrelevant because mostly everything can be produced at source.
You assume that 3d printing will not have limits. This is misplaced. Like I said, they could make things out of composite materials, and ensure that the bits that can be done on a 3d printer are the bits that are least likely to fail.
Planned obselecscence is a thing.
Too expensive NOW, yes, but that's the point.. it won't be long until it is perfectly feasible. You also neglect the fact that modern farming is primarily conventional outdoor farming.. in artifical environments you can grow crops much more efficiently without the risk of bugs and diseases... any limitation can be quickly ironed out.. actually (take thiis as a bad example, but an example nonetheless).. the cannabis market in the Uk is primarily from those home grow set ups.. only 15 years + ago the majority of cannabis in the UK had to be imported from regions warm enough to support the plant.. but that's no longer necessary because of home grows.. yes a bad example.. but an example of a radical market shift... there's no reason why this couldn't apply to plants that require warmer environments on a massive scale (industrialised hydrophics)
We cannot assume that a technology will be affordable one day. We cannot know with certainty that any particular technology will be. Are we flying around in Concordes at twice the speed of sound? Or are we flying in bigger slower planes?
And growing something that requires heat in somewhere like the UK requires heat. This ups the carbon footprint. Eg. UK tomatoes have a higher carbon footprint than pork, turkey or chicken, and often higher than foods that have travelled from 1000s of miles away. Food that requires storage so we can eat out of season also have a high carbon footprint, so UK apples bought in June will have a higher carbon footprint than a foreign apple.
GDP is always either growing or in recession, that's the nature of the market.. but keep in mind this accounts for jobs currently in existence that will soon be obselete as well.. you can't measure the current climate (which is pretty dire) and then say well let's benchmark that against a hopeful increase in the future + added billions of people. It's not about a change in work methods like someone earlier was trying to argue about donkeys +carts/railways/ etc it's the complete removal of a human's job from the marketplace. Complete radical shift.
I base it upon history. For the past few hundred years, technology has improved, fewer jobs have been required for many industries, and yet there are more jobs, and more prosperity. I see no evidence that there will be mass unemployment due to automation.
There may be some white collar jobs that could go soon, but again, this does not mean that everyone will get laid off, and new skills will be required.
