QUOTE(Neraphym @ Oct 17 2006, 06:52 PM)
Ah, that's definitely a good point. But what is going to happen when matter replication becomes possible? Would money even be necessary? Why work your {expletive antidisestablishmentarianized by Cspace} of to get money if you can't buy anything with it? All you'd have to do is press a button and whatever you want appears. Of course, this only applies to goods. Services and real estate would be unaffected. What might happen?
In terms of whether money, bartering and other basics of trade are formed then my answer is yes. On the very basic level, bartering has been a major pillar of human society. To process of replicating something would not be as simple as a push of a button and presto you have an instant product. The process would have be a major trial and error kind of thing. Instantly dismantling and rebuilding each atom individually would be something that requires extreme amounts of time, effort and concentration. More than any single human is quite possibly capable of.
But moving onto my point about replication and trade. The introduction of something that replicates would most likely add a new degree in how things are traded, but the principle might just stay the same. Someone replicates something, they sell it on the market and it goes from there. People in any society are greedy and need something that they can hold and has physical form. Something like money, gold, silver, etc. I'm not saying that each and every person is greedy, but on some levels a person needs something that is actually tangible and is able to be held. If they cant have this kind of object or currency, what will motivate them to create better products and improve the design of their replicated product? Doing it for the greater good of humanity and the progress of human technology? I think not, excluding probably a select few people. Things like money, power, and benefits are what drive and motivate people.
QUOTE(Neraphym @ Oct 19 2006, 03:49 PM)
You could have made a similar arguement about computers 100 years ago.
Yes people could have made the same comment about computers 100 years ago, but the computer in essence dates back many centuries to the days of the Ancient World and quite possibly earlier than that. The Abacus, sun dial, and various other inventions were the baseline inventions that would soon evolve into the personal computer, wrist watch, calculator, etc. I'm not very familiar with how replication works, but if what a lot of people say here is right about replication taking massive amounts of energy to create a simple object as a pencil for example, then it would take unrealistic amounts of energy and money to create an object like say a computer or something. Quite honestly, in my opinion, I do not think something can be created out of nothing.
Another problem I see with the replication theory is in terms of copyrighting and protecting your product. An example of what I mean is if two scientists from two different corporations create product that are similar and quite possibly exactly the same but the method and formula's they used to create the product differed, who is entitled to the copyright? Now only if both scientists started in the same amount of time and finished in similar time frame. They go ask their bosses to get copyrights upon this product they designed, now the question I present to you, if both corporations gained the copyrights to this product, who has the right to produce the product if both corporations have the exact same copyright but due to intellectual property laws, they are conflicting and neither is allowed to make this product. Who gets the right to make the product and sell it on the market and who doesn't? Yes, I know it's very complicated what I said, but I ask everyone that question about who gets the rights.
Sign In
Register
Help
MultiQuote
)
