If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Seven technologies that will surely kill every last one of us regardless as to how many basements you are behind   (uproxx.com) divider line 70
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14457 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Aug 2010 at 6:05 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-20 06:19:34 AM
My liver will fail long before any of that shiat gets me.
 
2010-08-20 06:38:31 AM
I'm a grammar fascist, but even a grammar moderate should want to blitzkrieg that headline.
 
2010-08-20 06:58:41 AM
Angel of Death: I'm a grammar fascist, but even a grammar moderate should want to blitzkrieg that headline.

7 technologies that will surely kill every last one of us irregardless as to how many basements you are behind


/ftfy
 
2010-08-20 07:07:49 AM
i659.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-20 07:08:24 AM
This guy is an idiot.

/that is all
 
2010-08-20 07:37:31 AM
Now, let's talk about manufacturing. Currently, companies rely on the difficulty of manufacturing to protect intellectual property - if someone starts up a new factory making counterfeit iphones, somebody notices. If someone discovers you're illegally manufacturing Rolls Royces, expect calls from extremely unamused lawyers. With desktop fabrication, this is no longer the case. You can't sue hundreds of millions of people, as bittorrent has already demonstrated. Piracy could very easily move from being a software problem to being an everything problem. Massive numbers of companies could go out of business. In theory such companies would no longer be needed - Half the world's industry suddenly collapsing would have devastating effects on the world economy including food production. This little recession we're coming out of? A slow day, by comparison. Think the great depression, plus or minus a bank run or three.

Except that, were this scenario to happen, we'd have reached singularity, which means that we could replicate anything we want, so money would be obsolete anyway.

The author sounds like an RIAA-fellater.
 
2010-08-20 08:20:20 AM
WE'RE DOOOOOMED!!!!
 
2010-08-20 08:23:55 AM
I'm OK with Skynet destroying humanity as long as they roll out this model:

www.aintitcool.com
 
2010-08-20 08:28:52 AM
This man is very frightened of the Singularity. Does technocracy strike fear in the heart of people?

I also loved the "No, my capitalism!" pleas in the 3D printing section. Oh no, the cost of living will go down drastically! Think of the companies!
 
2010-08-20 08:33:33 AM
AfroSpatula: This man is very frightened of the Singularity. Does technocracy strike fear in the heart of people?

I also loved the "No, my capitalism!" pleas in the 3D printing section. Oh no, the cost of living will go down drastically! Think of the companies!


Seriously. Who gives a shiat about intellectual property, or money for that matter, when we could replicate anything we wanted out of thin air? Why the f*ck would piracy even matter any more?
 
2010-08-20 08:38:10 AM
Dear author of TFA: STFU, EABOD, GBTW and DIAF. Thank you, you pathetic ignorant moron.

FlyingPig: AfroSpatula: This man is very frightened of the Singularity. Does technocracy strike fear in the heart of people?

I also loved the "No, my capitalism!" pleas in the 3D printing section. Oh no, the cost of living will go down drastically! Think of the companies!

Seriously. Who gives a shiat about intellectual property, or money for that matter, when we could replicate anything we wanted out of thin air? Why the f*ck would piracy even matter any more?


It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.
/Farking progress, how does it work
 
2010-08-20 08:45:38 AM
Barakku: It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.

But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless. The only reason to keep enforcing the obsolete model of selling goods for money would be to create artificial scarcity and maintain their superiority over the common peop...

...OH.
 
2010-08-20 08:49:48 AM
Home manufacturing:
He's afraid of normal people owning guns?
Realistically it takes very specific kinds of metallurgy and machining to make a reliable weapon. Its not the kind of thing a home printer will be able to do. Same for making cars or most everything else for that matter.
The amount of talent and equipment needed will outweigh the cost of just buying the manufactured item. Not that you couldn't make these things with enough time and talent already.
Its just crazy to think I'd spend thousands of dollars on a machine to make guns for me when I could buy a half dozen of them on the street for less.

Geo Engineering:
Its not exactly a push button operation. The scale of doing any of these projects is massive just to see a small change. You'll have plenty of time to change or stop your method if you see it headed towards madness.
I more think it will be stopped from happening because a continuing crisis is more lucrative than one people see as being under control. How are we supposed to sell billions of dollars in solar panels and windmills if a container ship full of iron dust can make the global warming problem go away?

Grey Goo:
I find it hard to be afraid of a machine that can be defeated by a magnet wrapped in a plastic bag.

Genetic engineering:
Would be concerned if the creatures we "created" were actually better than the ones produced by natural selection. So far we've done more damage with selective breeding and the careless transplanting of species to new environments.

The matrix:
We're already in it...

Pesticides:
We need to home build some genetically engineered dogs to carry nano machine enhanced bees in their mouths, programmed by the matrix to pollinate plankton with iron.
 
2010-08-20 08:50:15 AM
All I want to know is; Can it make Tea, Earl Grey, hot?
 
2010-08-20 08:52:15 AM
FlyingPig: Barakku: It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.

But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless. The only reason to keep enforcing the obsolete model of selling goods for money would be to create artificial scarcity and maintain their superiority over the common peop...

...OH.


Think of it like software and digital content. People aren't exactly going broke.
 
2010-08-20 08:57:16 AM
Po-Tweet?
 
2010-08-20 09:02:05 AM
That was some weapons grade whargarble there. Bet the writer had an onion on his belt.
 
2010-08-20 09:28:03 AM
way south: Home manufacturing:
He's afraid of normal people owning guns?
Realistically it takes very specific kinds of metallurgy and machining to make a reliable weapon. Its not the kind of thing a home printer will be able to do. Same for making cars or most everything else for that matter.
The amount of talent and equipment needed will outweigh the cost of just buying the manufactured item. Not that you couldn't make these things with enough time and talent already.
Its just crazy to think I'd spend thousands of dollars on a machine to make guns for me when I could buy a half dozen of them on the street for less.


Actually, people can and do make guns now. Granted most are from parts, but there are people who make guns from scratch. My father, using just a bandsaw, a drill press, a lathe, and some woodworking tools and files, made a working flintlock trade gun from scratch.

It's not just old fashioned guns that can be made that way. Modern guns can be made that way also. It's common enough that the BATF mentions it in their FAQs. You can make an unlimited number of guns for yourself, and you don't need to put a serial number on them unless you sell them (and if you make a habit of that, you'd better get a manufacturers license).

In fact, from a home manufacturing standpoint, it's actually easier to make a fully functional submachinegun than it is to make just about any other kind of gun.

As a final data point, I'd point out that Peshawar in Pakistan has been known for it's gun shops, where they make guns mostly by hand.

Remember, guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of that time were manufactured using tools and materials far inferior to what you would find at a modern Lowe's or Home Depot. Almost anyone who has taken shop in high school can make an effective firearm. It may not be as ergonomic or convenient to use as one manufactured by Colt, Ruger, or Beretta, but it will work.
 
2010-08-20 09:28:27 AM
FlyingPig: I'm OK with Skynet destroying humanity as long as they roll out this model:

Came here to say this.

/Death by Snoo Snoo
 
2010-08-20 09:28:28 AM
toyota not on the list?
 
2010-08-20 09:30:41 AM
FlyingPig: Barakku: It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.

But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless. The only reason to keep enforcing the obsolete model of selling goods for money would be to create artificial scarcity and maintain their superiority over the common peop...

...OH.


You would still need the base materials. You would still need to go to your local supermarket and buy the iron, plastic, silicon, diamond dust, lithium, and other materials necessary to print your new celphone.

You'd also still need to either purchase food, or the materials necessary for purchasing food.

An object-printer would definitely make paper money obsolete, but not all forms of currency. Metals would be the new currency - your object printer can't create iron out of nothing, and you'll need iron to "print" things... so suddenly iron is worth something... and based on the scarcity of iron, and the demand for it, you can use it (and other materials) as a form of currency.
 
2010-08-20 09:31:41 AM
Talon:

You'd also still need to either purchase food, or the materials necessary for purchasing printing food.


FTFM
 
2010-08-20 09:32:25 AM
FlyingPig: But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless.

They'd still have to buy the raw materials to fabricate objects from. And if the price of printer ink cartridges is any indication...
 
2010-08-20 09:41:11 AM
I liked this article more when Cracked did a smaller version of it. In 2007 (new window). Or when The Times of London did a larger version of it. In 2009 (new window).

Or the book version of the article.

ecx.images-amazon.com

Or the Trope (new window) of the article.
 
2010-08-20 09:48:01 AM
I'll tell you what's going to kill us. Bugs.

Fleas. Mosquitoes. Bed bugs. Roaches.

The article worries about nanotechnology, but there are already large scale technologies opposed to us and they've taken our best shots and laughed. Inside these large scale technologies (insects, in case you're slow on the uptake) carry smaller technologies (microbes) that have also laughed off our best shots. Nimble small defeats clumsy big every time. From the gods defeating the titans, to rats defeating the dinosaurs.

DDT-resistant mosquitoes are out there. Bed bugs are resistant to just about everything. Even desiccants. Fortunately there are no diseases which bed bugs currently deliver, but that's just a matter of time. Rats and fleas just need a change of climate to bring back the bubonic plague, and we're arranging that one even as we speak.
 
2010-08-20 09:52:37 AM
Talon: FlyingPig: Barakku: It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.

But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless. The only reason to keep enforcing the obsolete model of selling goods for money would be to create artificial scarcity and maintain their superiority over the common peop...

...OH.

You would still need the base materials. You would still need to go to your local supermarket and buy the iron, plastic, silicon, diamond dust, lithium, and other materials necessary to print your new celphone.

You'd also still need to either purchase food, or the materials necessary for purchasing food.

An object-printer would definitely make paper money obsolete, but not all forms of currency. Metals would be the new currency - your object printer can't create iron out of nothing, and you'll need iron to "print" things... so suddenly iron is worth something... and based on the scarcity of iron, and the demand for it, you can use it (and other materials) as a form of currency.


The soil in your garden (new window) contains a lot of what you're looking for.

Soil is mainly made up of oxygen (46.7%), silicon (27%), aluminium (8.1 %) and iron (5.0%). Plant nutrients like Ca, Mg, K, Na, P and S are present in the minerals and in the soil solution. O2, Si, and Al occur as constituents of minerals and as oxides. Fe occurs mainly in the form of oxides and ferromagnesium minerals. Ca occurs mainly in calcite, gypsum, apatite and dolomite. Mg is present mainly in dolomite and hornblend.

K occurs mainly in microcline and mica. P occurs as aluminium phosphate and calcium phosphate and in the organic form as phospholipids, inositol, choline, etc. N occurs mainly in the organic form as proteins, amino acids, etc. All micronutrients like Mo, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B occur in the inorganic form.


And nanotechnology is at the molecular level. You could have a vat like a compost maker where you dump in old dirt and banana peels. The nanobots would extract and separate the elements.

Now I think of it, it's a perfect way to dispose of any inconvenient evidence or bodies you may have lying around.
 
2010-08-20 10:02:15 AM
Jackpot777: The soil in your garden (new window) contains a lot of what you're looking for.

You assume your printer will be able to accept the input of "dirt" and sort out the component materials on its own... and that the component materials, once sorted, will be of the proper quality and form (e.g. dust vs a solid) to be used. There's a very big difference between an ink cartridge with three separate spots for red, blue, and yellow where you have each liquid color pre-sorted and put in separately... and a solid blob of seemingly black-goo that you expect your printer to separate on its own - this is even more complicated when you're expecting it to indiscriminately be able to separate individual elements from complex molecules.

While it is possible that you have one big "in" slot through which you dump anything you please and the printer has the ability to separate and alter materials as necessary... I think it is far more likely the first generation of these devices will require separate inputs for separate materials. If they are going to have the world-devastating effects described in the article (unlikely), then the world will be in ruins long before the second generation "dump-anything-in-it" models come about.
 
2010-08-20 10:05:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-7Qar1lFjo
 
2010-08-20 10:10:48 AM
We'll be fine until someone decides to combine all of them to make organically remote controlled homemade rape robots with nanobot spunk that turns its victims into more rape robots.
 
2010-08-20 10:10:48 AM
Talon: Jackpot777: The soil in your garden (new window) contains a lot of what you're looking for.

You assume your printer will be able to accept the input of "dirt" and sort out the component materials on its own... and that the component materials, once sorted, will be of the proper quality and form (e.g. dust vs a solid) to be used. There's a very big difference between an ink cartridge with three separate spots for red, blue cyan, magenta and yellow where you have each liquid color pre-sorted and put in separately... and a solid blob of seemingly black-goo that you expect your printer to separate on its own - this is even more complicated when you're expecting it to indiscriminately be able to separate individual elements from complex molecules.

While it is possible that you have one big "in" slot through which you dump anything you please and the printer has the ability to separate and alter materials as necessary... I think it is far more likely the first generation of these devices will require separate inputs for separate materials. If they are going to have the world-devastating effects described in the article (unlikely), then the world will be in ruins long before the second generation "dump-anything-in-it" models come about.


True, and FTFY on the inks. Red = C + Y with white. Blue = C + M with white.
 
2010-08-20 10:13:23 AM
Gordon Bennett: We'll be fine until someone decides to combine all of them to make organically remote controlled homemade rape robots with nanobot spunk that turns its victims into more rape robots.

That has to be the single most disturbing thought ever!
 
2010-08-20 10:14:52 AM
We've already got religion, nuclear weapons, and all-natural human paranoia.
 
2010-08-20 10:16:02 AM
Some posters made good points. Specifically, I'm not stating that money will become obsolete. It's still the primary way to determine appropriation of needs and goods currently.

It cannot remain the one thing everybody needs to survive. The lack thereof shall no longer be the Reaper.

Money is currently needed to house yourself, feed yourself, clothe yourself. If proliferation of housing, food and clothing gets implemented, the concept of needing money to get yourself these extremely basic needs will start to weaken. Building materials can be stripped apart and recycled, very similarly to how plastic, glass and paper can. You will be able to recycle your goods and see them immediately remade.

I hope people won't look upon this information and feel fear.

Wealth proliferation absolutely is doable in our lifetimes. A stepping stone is looking past profit models. Another is to look at our wasted indulgences, and see where we can distribute our recycled materials to those who don't have enough.

Humorously enough, legalizing cannabis might be what this country needs to make this paradigm change smoothly. Convincing a whole generation that profit sharing and material distribution to the whole globe is possible right now might only be capable through a mellowing psychotropic agent.
 
2010-08-20 10:22:20 AM
Talon: You assume your printer will be able to accept the input of "dirt" and sort out the component materials on its own... and that the component materials, once sorted, will be of the proper quality and form (e.g. dust vs a solid) to be used. There's a very big difference between an ink cartridge with three separate spots for red, blue, and yellow where you have each liquid color pre-sorted and put in separately... and a solid blob of seemingly black-goo that you expect your printer to separate on its own - this is even more complicated when you're expecting it to indiscriminately be able to separate individual elements from complex molecules.

The article was actually taking the basis of desktop manufacturing via laser and going right to molecular manufacturing. Everyone here seems to be thinking of the latter, which is actually an extension of nanotechnology. If we ever figure out molecular manufacturing all of these issues will be a non-issue. If we can do assembly at the molecular level, than disassembly at that level will be trivially easy.
 
2010-08-20 10:24:38 AM
Gordon Bennett: We'll be fine until someone decides to combine all of them to make organically remote controlled homemade rape robots with nanobot spunk that turns its victims into more rape robots.

I smell a summer blockbuster. Can it star summer glau? Can you rape the willing?
 
2010-08-20 10:27:00 AM
AfroSpatula: Money is currently needed to house yourself, feed yourself, clothe yourself. If proliferation of housing, food and clothing gets implemented, the concept of needing money to get yourself these extremely basic needs will start to weaken.

It already is weak. You can live off of food stamps and live in shelters. Even with today's technology, there is very little need to earn money in order to get your basic needs fulfilled. But still, the vast majority of people will work their asses off for a BMW or a bigger house.
 
2010-08-20 10:29:50 AM
Here's three inventions that will cripple the world economy the minute they're invented:

Matter to energy converter
Energy to matter converter
Software to scan and interface the two.

Put mass in one side, get energy, minus entropy; put energy into the other side, get mass of any type, minus entropy. Congratulations, you've just rendered every non service industry obsolete. It'd be an end to scarcity. What would we fight over if we had energy and resources only limited by mass?
 
2010-08-20 10:36:56 AM
Jackpot777: Or the Trope (new window) of the article.

Ahhhh shiat. Jackpot777 linked to TV Tropes.

/tab
//tab
///tab
///tabtabtabtabtab
 
2010-08-20 10:40:58 AM
LoneCoon: Here's three inventions that will cripple the world economy the minute they're invented:

Just one actually:

Holodeck
 
2010-08-20 10:43:49 AM
4. Desktop fabrication

How the hell is that a bad thing? Economic collapse? Why you could manufacture everything you need. Even Karl Marx acknowledged communism to truly be perfect every homestead would have to be self-sufficient so economic greed is no longer harmful.
 
2010-08-20 10:45:18 AM
Jackpot777: True, and FTFY on the inks. Red = C + Y with white. Blue = C + M with white.

u.u;; Yeah I know about the proper names for 'em. CKMY vs RGB... not sure why I went with red/yellow/blue... I guess it's just early.

entropic_existence: disassembly at that level will be trivially easy.

It's been a very long time since college chemistry... and I absolutely hated that class because of the teacher... but I seem to recall the disassembling of a molecule to be a difficult thing requiring significant energy and a catalyst... that is XY+AB XB+AY+Energy. I am, by no means, a chemist (perhaps someone more educated than I could chime in and explain), but I'm not sure a nanomachine pulling an Oxygen off of H2O would be a trivial thing.
 
2010-08-20 10:46:28 AM
Talon: XY+AB XB+AY+Energy

Damn it! Fark ate the arrows.

XY+AB yeilds XB+AY+Energy
 
2010-08-20 10:53:21 AM
Talon:
Damn it! Fark ate the arrows.


When something *EATS* your arrows, it's time to start thinking about switching to a firearm.
 
2010-08-20 10:55:19 AM
Nope, nope, and nope. Oh, and not that either.

No, none of the aforementioned things will lead to our demise as a species. They all work too slowly. In order to wipe out a species, especially a dominant species, the method has got to be fast. (Remember the dinosaurs? Boom! Gone in a relative heartbeat.)

No, what is going to kill humanity is something much more insidious than bugs or technology. What will doom us is the moment that ignorant, fark-witted, illiterate bastards like the submitter of this headline reach critical mass. Once they so far outnumber people of average-to-above average intelligence that they rule the world simply by numerical default, we can kiss our asses goodbye.
 
2010-08-20 11:00:57 AM
Rapmaster2000: We've already got religion, nuclear weapons, and all-natural human paranoia.

Nuclear weapons aren't really magical devices of destruction (not on a global scale, anyway, or a regional scale), the nuclear Armageddon thing is really absurd. We've detonated dozens of nuclear devices, they do NOT interfere with the global EM spectrum, computers will not be affected outside the blast radius. And the fallout isn't as bit a deal as people think either...in airburst detonations (the only kind that aren't retarded) the fallout ends up in the upper atmostphere. Plus that nuclear material has always been here...spreading it out isn't a good idea, but it's certainly not lethal to everything 100%.

Generally speaking EVERY nuclear threat is vastly exaggerated and very very poorly understood by the public though. But who cares, it's 2010, CERN already sucked us up into a black hole and in 1945 the atmosphere caught fire from the detonation of an atomic bomb. We're all dead, right?

blahpers:
Ahhhh shiat. Jackpot777 linked to TV Tropes.

/tab
//tab
///tab
///tabtabtabtabtab


Gotta love Wikis.

LoneVVolf: That was some weapons grade whargarble there. Bet the writer had an onion on his belt.

Dear Mr. President, there are too many states these days. Please eliminate 3.
PS: I am NOT a crackpot
 
2010-08-20 11:19:22 AM
Good. I think evolution needs to start over and create something better than humans anyway.
 
2010-08-20 11:21:58 AM
FTA: So, what's the problem? Well, in a word, bees. Bees pollinate almost every major food group, and pesticide use is driving them extinct.

And this little blog has suddenly lost all credibility. Pesticide use? Really? You don't think that was first thing HUNDREDS of entomologists, biologists, and agricultural scientists looked at when confronting the problem of diminishing bee populations?

I'm not saying the problem is not man-made; but maybe don't be so authoritative on a question which continues to befuddle the world's best and brightest bee people.
 
2010-08-20 11:36:34 AM
FlyingPig: Barakku: It would be exactly like software, sell licenses to print objects.

But even the people who work for the companies producing it could have unlimited amounts of anything they want anyway using the new technology, so why bother? Money would be useless. The only reason to keep enforcing the obsolete model of selling goods for money would be to create artificial scarcity and maintain their superiority over the common peop...

...OH.


You would still need to buy the raw materials to create stuff out of, as well as the energy needed to power the factory.
 
2010-08-20 11:39:32 AM
Barakku: Rapmaster2000: We've already got religion, nuclear weapons, and all-natural human paranoia.

Nuclear weapons aren't really magical devices of destruction (not on a global scale, anyway, or a regional scale), the nuclear Armageddon thing is really absurd. We've detonated dozens of nuclear devices, they do NOT interfere with the global EM spectrum, computers will not be affected outside the blast radius. And the fallout isn't as bit a deal as people think either...in airburst detonations (the only kind that aren't retarded) the fallout ends up in the upper atmostphere. Plus that nuclear material has always been here...spreading it out isn't a good idea, but it's certainly not lethal to everything 100%.

Generally speaking EVERY nuclear threat is vastly exaggerated and very very poorly understood by the public though. But who cares, it's 2010, CERN already sucked us up into a black hole and in 1945 the atmosphere caught fire from the detonation of an atomic bomb. We're all dead, right?


They kinda have a bit more of an effect when you blow up a bunch of them at one time...
Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering (new window)
 
2010-08-20 11:48:26 AM
LoneCoon: Here's three inventions that will cripple the world economy the minute they're invented:

Matter to energy converter
Energy to matter converter
Software to scan and interface the two.

Put mass in one side, get energy, minus entropy; put energy into the other side, get mass of any type, minus entropy. Congratulations, you've just rendered every non service industry obsolete. It'd be an end to scarcity. What would we fight over if we had energy and resources only limited by mass?


Mass.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report