test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Replicator - Effects on human society
saihung423
Member Posts: 548 Arc User
We've, most of us, seen the article on the 3-D food printer, that has garnered comparisons to the replicator of Star Trek fame. An article here
The more I think of this technology, the more I wonder what effects its world wide use would have on human society.
I don't mean at first really, but let's say this is viable and can be perfected as a food source for people in say...50 years.
How will that change human agriculture production?
Would food animals such as cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. have to relearn the survival skills we have bred out of them for untold generations?
With the advent of this technology, would starvation and food related illnesses virtually disappear? Or would it be something that only the rich and affluent would be using regularly?
I think this would radically altar the course of human history if remotely as viable as seen on Star Trek.
What are your thoughts? What are some of the things that would change that aren't as obvious?
Just curious what other folks thoughts might be.
The more I think of this technology, the more I wonder what effects its world wide use would have on human society.
I don't mean at first really, but let's say this is viable and can be perfected as a food source for people in say...50 years.
How will that change human agriculture production?
Would food animals such as cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. have to relearn the survival skills we have bred out of them for untold generations?
With the advent of this technology, would starvation and food related illnesses virtually disappear? Or would it be something that only the rich and affluent would be using regularly?
I think this would radically altar the course of human history if remotely as viable as seen on Star Trek.
What are your thoughts? What are some of the things that would change that aren't as obvious?
Just curious what other folks thoughts might be.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I think that it would start as a technology for the rich, but it wouldn't be long before organizations like the Red Cross start using them to feed the hungry, and eventually someone will come up with a cheaper version that everyone can have in their kitchen.
Just look at microwaves.
Less replicator, more assembly robot.
I am thinking hypothetically of course.
The agricultural sectors would almost have to rebel against its widespread use.
In regards to the disease, I was thinking that with widespread usage, it would eliminate a lot of the food borne pathogens like salmonella and such.
I think we'll end up using these though, mainly cause our current method of feeding ourselves is unsustainable. If you look at the inflation rates and (much higher) wage developement in the current low-wage countries (they're playing catch-up) it's pretty clear a time is coming where it'll be cheaper to produce iPhones back home rather than in the no-longer-low-wage countries that'll be wanting their own iPhones. And more importantly, their own steaks.
Our meat eating habit is the main problem, cause to get an X amount of energy's worth of meat out of an animal, you have to put in many times that in plant matter. That's presently done with soy. If more people want to cram cattle into sheds and feed them until death ensues; there's only so much land to grow soy on, even if we clear those last nasty patches of rainforest. Scarcity will drive up the prices, and long story short, the vegetarians will save a bundle. (Thought they were insufferable now? Just wait!) Unless we can get this vat-meat thing off the ground anyway. (Presently, at .25 million dollars a burger, it's a bit pricey still.)
And if everyone's going to overeat like we do in the west, we're probably going to have to learn to love algae. 70% of the planet's surface is perfectly arable water. Just add salt, sugar, food coloring and whatever else for flavor.
So algae and meatslush. Sounds like a match made for printing to me.
My character Tsin'xing
Assuming, yes, then I for one, would likely only eat the food if it could somehow be demonstrated as minimally processed. That or to avoid starvation. That pizza in the picture does not look like it fits that requirement. I've some medical conditions that were traced to my previous overly-processed food intake, and I'd prefer to avoid that.
Now one thing I did hear suggested for 3D food printing that I found intriguing was protein wafers made from powdered insects. I've long heard that many types of insects are actually a good food source, but I'm fully conditioned by my upbringing to avoid eating them. Yuck. But hand me an unidentifiable wafer, blend the contents to make it taste good, and I'll likely eat it. That increases our protein food sources significantly.
I'm not sure though, how a food printer will benefit starving villages the world over if the printer needs a cultivated source for the raw materials.
Now a Trek replicator, that is a different matter. There, you make multiple copies of a single original pattern, and you do so by converting energy to matter. Which means I don't have to grow those green beans anymore. I just have to hook my replicator battery up to a state-of-the-art solar power system, and the energy from the sunlight is converted into a duplicate copy of a pattern of green beans.
This has some far reaching implications. For example: farming would become a niche market, highly specialized to producing the highest quality product, not just mass production. The Picard winery was like that: highest quality done the old-fashioned way. There would be a rise in environmental, recycling, and energy jobs. We'd begin emptying our landfills. Energy is energy. The rubbish of our landfills would be converted to energy, and from there it could either power our homes, or convert from pure energy to food, via the replicator. We'd need more archeologist specializing in landfill archeology (don't laugh, its a real thing) sorting through what they could of the past before its destroyed in the matter to energy process. I suspect we'd see a rise in arts & crafts. Keeping with the food replicator, more would be willing to experiment in cooking if the replicator could provide all the ingredients, and would mercifully recycle failed and burned experiments quickly. The list goes a lot longer.
What I suspect would happen though, is that someone would find a way of metering it all, rather than it being free and open-sourced like Star Trek implies.
But yes, as others have pointed out in this thread, the potential to end scarcity would upset our social order--too many people make their living from existing supply chains, plus scarcity itself is used as a means of social control (i.e. "obey or we'll cut your rations").
On the other hand, even WITH replicators, we will likely see food going from a "hardware" paradigm to a "software" paradigm--there will be "freeware" recipes available online for people to download, but there will also be plenty of "premium" recipes that must be purchased or temporarily leased, and that will be protected by copyright. Want a generic apple pie? Download the free version. Want an authentic brand-name style apple pie? Pay the fee.
Im more in favor of the way Picards brother thinks, as I have a farm myself with animals...real food!
The Picard winery was in my mind when I was thinking of this, I think I agree...there would have to still be farms and other agricultural manufacturing still going on. There would be many at first who would not consume that food.
And that real food market would likely become a niche market.
What would happen to the 1.8 billion cows? If the advent of a replicator made only a third of the cows irrelevant as a food, how would we handle the populations of livestock that would not be consumed?
Let them live their lives out naturally?
Have a world wide byob bbq?