It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2015 @ 07:24 PM

originally posted by: taoistguy

originally posted by: prisoneronashipoffools
I think you are missing a huge factor of having a replicator. If we are able to gather matter at the atomic and molecular level and control it enough to build things, then we by default would have the power to take things deconstruct them and build new things out of them.

It would take recycling to a whole new level. in fact it would probably usher in a per use society. Meaning we only possess an object as long as it is needed to be used, then after using it we would throw it back into the replicator to be disassembled, sorted and stored, until we wanted to make something else out of it.

For instance you could make a knife to cut up stuff for cooking. as soon as your done you throw it back in the replicator and have it disassembled and stored. when you need a knife again you make one. You only need the knife as long as your using it and you wouldn't even ever have to sharpen, store or maintain it because you just make a brand new one when needed.

Also the molecules and atoms that make up that knife can make up other stuff. If your cooking you have a knife, want to go play golf the same molecules that made up the knife can now make up part of the golf club you just made in your replicator.

And even from the standpoint of waste and garbage, what garbage would such a society produce when the molecules and atoms can be reused over and over endlessly.

just my opinion though

Why bother with a knide to cook with when you can instantly create the food?

But how many knives and empty milk bottles does it take to make a chickpea curry?

Oh I see you are a small picture thinker one who over examines insignificant points and minutia while missing the big picture.

The type of person who sitting in an economic class worries about what a widget; a fictional product, does and what color it is and etc, all while missing the point of the widget, which is to serve to illustrate a greater principle, ie the structure and function of economic theorem.

Yes if you over analyze the example of knife, a society such as that would probably not need knives, but since it was just an example of a random object to illustrate the point that such a society would probably only use things when needed and recycle them then it served it's purpose.

As far as wondering how many knifes and milk bottles would be needed to make a curry that is also a very narrow assumption that only knifes and milk bottles would be recycled. In fact most waste organic matter would probably be recycled as well.
And since most organic matter on earth is primarily made of carbon even things that would be considered inedible could be broken down to make edible items. The question isn't how many knifes and milk bottles do you need to make up a curry, but how many curries could you get out of a diamond.

Anyway such a society would recycle all garbage and waste and have access to almost any molecules or compounds needed to make anything they need organic or inorganic.

Just my opinion though.

edit on 29-5-2015 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 29-5-2015 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 29-5-2015 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 08:48 PM
To be able to take an object , break it down and rebuild it into something else would take a technology level far greater than we have today. And the breaking down of the matter into the subatomic structure would take an amazing amount of energy. Then you would have to have a 100% accurate map of the information contained by that same subatomic structure of the object to create.

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:52 AM
Star Trek Replicators will never be realised because they require insane amounts of energy.

To create a single gram of matter, your looking at around the energy output of just under one & a half times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Scale that up to a cup of tea or a burger. It's never going to happen due to energy constraints even if we actually had the technical ability to construct a real-life replicator.

A more efficient solution would be nanobots/nanites but given the consequences, that tech will never be allowed into the hands of your everyday member of the public.

The best we're gonna get is a form of 3d food printers, whereby you purchase the freeze dried ingredients & then use your phone or tablet to create a recipe from. Think of this as a cruder form of what we'll all be using in 50 years or so:

<< 1   >>

log in