These 3D Printing Houses Might Be The Answer To Homelessness

Sounds like “pissing in the river and watching it rise” to me (Patty Smith). Some quick political moves right before an election to get some extra votes out of it.

But where is the machine that makes Trees grow, at same speed ? :hot_face:

Well, not at light speed of course, but this might come a bit as a suprise for most, do you know that china planted over 70 million trees (might be more by now this figure is from 2018). Every chinese is called upon to plant at least one tree in his life. Also China is first land in the world who successfully stopped expansion of the Gobi desert by planting trees. By their calculation China will have planted up to 100 billion trees in 2050. Even Nasa puplished satelite pictures in 2019 about it and admit that china has become a pioneer in environment protection.

Meanwhile in the west we still discussing that something has to be done and come up with some shady new energy deals (Planet of the Humans)

China makes a whole lot more sense to me than any carbon taxes, e-cars, bio diesel and what else they have planned to make richie rich richer.

1 Like

One proven good thing does not negate all of the horrors going on in that country though, hence why I take offense at the idea that China just makes sense.

Expanding on that, I think the vast majority of the planet’s nation states appear to fail in discovering the most efficient and sensible solution to a vast array of problems. In my opinion, the most effective solutions are ones that do not exactly come from the state, simply because it does not see heavy influence by bureaucracy or political interests (such as some of these housing projects). Giving the homeless a house is only step one though, step two is teaching them skills to maintain the new dwelling, search for jobs, or start a business.

The implication that the homeless don’t have skills is ignorant. The homeless population here in Portland OR is as skilled as anyone else. They make excellent use of discarded materials to build shelter, fix appliances, and craft the means of survival. On average, they are more gracious, more hard-working, and consume far less resources than the people here who own homes. I’ve even seen someone build a treehouse in my neighborhood, complete with a drawbridge and bicycle parking. It was removed later, presumably by the police.

A 3d-printed home will do nothing for someone if we currently cannot even grant them a patch of fallow ground on which to pitch a tent. The issue of homelessness is not technological, nor is it the fault of the homeless. Technology is a fetish, and blaming the homeless is just a vehicle for avoiding the truth as well

1 Like

These 3D printed homes though are meant for Africa and other places where deep poverty is normal, illiteracy is normal, and education is poor to non-existent. I don’t think the level of skill is the same as in the big west coast cities.

Even tho we talking about a totalitarian system, you can’t deny that they did some things right like their efforts to protect there environment i already mentioned or their investment in Africa to build a infrastructure instead of pure exploitation like Europe and the US did for centuries.

But back to topic: You talk about ‘them’ like they are kids who can’t think for themselves. The way the US media covered the San Francisco problem like it is a rat infestation is shocking for me as European. We talking about people here right?. Lets not forget the 2008 crash were lots of hard working families lost their homes and retirement provisions overnight. This shit didn’t happend in Europe at that time, even tho a lot of people lost their retirement provisions as well. Why it didn’t happend? Cause we have working safety net here.

Not to mention what the aftermath of the corona crisis will bring. I’m just glad living in Europe right now. One thing is sure tho, 3D printed homes are not the solution to a problem that goes so much deeper.
This reminds me of a weekly challange entrie by a user called Millani pretty much sums it up:



The west coast homeless problem does indeed trace back to policies, but capitalism did not play that much of a role.

Rather, the major west coast states and cities are known for things like extortion-level taxation (which greatly reduces disposable income), suffocating regulations and forced ‘living wages’ (which make it very difficult for small businesses to make money), incredibly stringent building codes (which derail housing projects), urban growth boundaries (which prevents construction of new housing), strict renewable energy and “green” laws (which cause electric bills and fuel prices to skyrocket), generous aid and welfare laws that attract homeless from other states, ect…

I beg to differ. Thinking of the 1920 stock market crash as well as the housing bubble in 2008, all leads back to deregulation in conjunction with an unleashed predatory capitalism that knows no boundaries. Its no secret and well documented that guys like John D. Rockefeller profited greatly from the 1920 crash. Money does not just vanish, it ends up in someones pocket, allways.

1 Like

Hello! West coast urban resident here. The threat of homelessness is what allows landlords to extract extortionate rents. So not only is homelessness a symptom of capitalism, it is what reinforces the relation to begin with. People become homeless when the landlord raises their rent and they don’t take no for an answer. And those stringent building regulations are probably the only thing keeping developers from bulldozing homes with the residents still inside.

As someone who lives in Kansas, you should not presume to speak for major west coast states areas any more than I would presume to speak for tornadoes

1 Like

So in the absence of strict regulation and top-down command and control policies from the state, do you actually think the average developer (or business owner) will just start killing people to take their money (because loosening regulation at both the state and federal level in much of the country has not led to this anywhere at the moment)?

Landlords might need to raise rents because of skyrocketing land prices and the rising cost of keeping up with regulations (for instance, the prices of California homes set to soar because of mandatory solar installations). Landlords and business owners shouldn’t be cast as scapegoats when over-regulation and/or state interference in the market creates a problem.

In the absence of a state, there wouldn’t be landlords. Who would the landlord call to evict tenants?

Not sure what to make of this. Are you suggesting that a landowner’s monthly mortgage payments fluctuate according to the appraised value of the land? I don’t think that’s how mortgages work.

Land prices are skyrocketting because there are less and less habitable zones on planet for more and more humans.
There are more regulations because of progress of science around this truth.

The dream of private house is not compatible with the need of land to feed population and need of forest to refresh climate.

The market does not attribute land to people who have a degree in management of ecosystems.
It just gives the land to the one who put on table the biggest amount of money.
It is completely naïve to say that people that have big amount of money are, for the vast majority of them, philanthropic smart guys. They are probably not all mobsters.
But if they became rich for being an expert in one domain, they can’t be expert in all fields.
That’s why regulations are inevitable whatever the domain is.

Economics theories of capitalism are lightyears away from what should be done. They are not taking into account physical limits of planet, physical limits of humans, demography …
They are based on thoughts of an aristocracy that existed 2 hundreds years, ago.
At that period, modern science was at its early states. Very far from what is is, nowadays.
Today, economics theories are so outdated that they are as dangerous as any form of charlatanery.

A twenty year old human is for the most part adapting the way of life of his parents. IMO, that is the main reason why mankind mindset is evolving slowly.
And the technology evolving a lot faster is creating lots of issues because of that.

Capitalist : How to produce masks at lowest cost ?
Market : Put all factories in a dictatorship where workers can be payed under a decent minimum wage and environmental regulation can be ignored. And don’t pay for any stock.
Covid 19 : Hello World !
World : I need to order billions of masks to china, for next week.
Physics : That is not possible.
World : Let’s quarantine.

That is same logic that is driving a desertification of the world that will end-up by starvation and wars.
Owner of land : Who pays the most for my land ?
Candidates : mister everybody, one billionaire, agro-industry, mining company,…

I don’t understand why you think carbon taxes and e-cars are plans to make richie rich richer. Yes, they won’t magically solve all environmental and climate problems we have, but they are good first steps (you also have to consider that carbon tax is just another money source for the state, it can be spent in many ways, for example distribute equally to the tax payers, so that people in average don’t loose money).

So if I read that right, the solutions in that post are as follows.

  • Stack and pack the human race into high density urban cores (as presented by the UN’s Agenda 30), no single-family homes, no private land ownership unless you are a scientist, a small apartment will be your living space and it will become your cage in the next pandemic.
  • Abolish parental rights, children will become the property of the state and the only thing you can do as a parent is to position your child to believe the state’s views, think the state’s thoughts, and blindly do everything the state says (all in the name of evolution). The state will take your child away if you are not willing to shut up and obey.

A lot of modern ‘science’ these days is all about agendas, all about justifying the centralization of power, and ultimately all about bringing a global marxist state. There are many other scientists who disagree with these views and argue other solutions that are far better and more sensible, but you have the mainstream media, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley working together to make sure you only hear a single point of view (ie. echo chambers are good)

1 Like

Let me turn your question around, what do you think sky rocket high carbon taxes will accomplish? I really like to hear it.

Do you know what caused the yellow vest protest in paris? The majority of middle class income families simply couldn’t afford to live in paris anymore where they work, so they were forced to move to the suburbs, so in order to get to work they’re dependent on their cars. Then along came Macron and soon after he increased the taxes on gasoline by 10% (any french may correct me here if the numbers are wrong) and because they already lived at their limits, they couldn’t even afford to get to work anymore. There’s just nothing left to live on anymore.

As for electric and hydrogen cars i suggest you watch Micheal Moores ‘Planet of the Humans’. If you can find it cause the link i posted yesterday is already bin taken down (suprise suprise) but i found another one (Planet of the Humans). Basically he explains that the amount of energy needed to produce batteries or hydrogen fuel is the same or more than emissions out of fossil based fuels.

That has been the case in those states for at least four or five decades. It is not a new development, and has as much to do with nanny-state mentality of “we can’t trust people with flammable liquid” as it does with jobs. Not new. Not part of the anti-automation trend.

Now, how about people stop with the logical fallacies, and virtue signalling derails, and address the OP’s question, “How would I model this in Blender”? =) I’d be just as interested as the OP in hearing people’s thoughts on the original issue.

That is not capitalism, it’s corporatism. NOT the same thing. False Equivalency, as the "landlords who pull that are “property management corporations”.

Now, how about people stop with the logical fallacies, and virtue signalling derails, and address the OP’s question, “How would I model this in Blender”? =) I’d be just as interested as the OP in hearing people’s thoughts on the original issue.

I absolutely did not write that.
It is not because I say that globalization of capitalism is stupidity based on an outdated mindset builded several centuries that I promote marxism that is also outdated of more than one century.
I would like humanity to use its imagination and let democracy triage important issues instead of letting them to hazard from market : I don’t think that makes me a dangerous partisan of dictatorship.

Use your imagination. A building of 6 or 8 floors to host 3 couples with kids.
So, basically same volume as 3 single-family houses but stacked on area of one.
With a garden split in 2 and vegetation on the roof for family living in the higher floors.
Next to it, same area to provide food to feed them.
Next to it, on third last surface, a volume of trees stocking carbon where kids of all families can play.

That is far from actual inhuman high density urban core if one third is forest.
That is something that anybody can feel logical, reasonable, without thinking of complexity of its expansion.
For that, mathematicians, hydrologists, geologists, city planners can be paid by states to fractalize that model.

Instead of being owner of house, you could be owner of 2 floors. But yes.
Private Land Ownership does not make sense if you want to make disappear homelessness or have an efficient politics of occupation of grounds.
It is only legitimate to privatize land at the only condition that everything else is satisfied.
Space for people, Space to grow food, Space for biodiversity, Space for mining, Space for industry.
If after that, there is still space available. You can play with the rest.
But to me, putting on same market and selling the same way what is vital minimum and what is accessory luxury: it is just suicidal.

You can not sleep at same place and same moment where another human being is sleeping. That is a physical limit to your liberty. There is no way to reject same physical limit for food or fresh air without accepting consequence that is death of this other human being.

I don’t know if there is something like that in your country. But in mine, when parents are deficient, putting in danger their own children : there is an organization called “child protection.”

I don’t see where you picked in my terms a notion of abolition of parental rights.
I am just saying that instead of buying or renting a house, people could live an almost same experience by buying or renting 2 floors of a small building.
My thoughts don’t go above than : law should not allow building of single-family houses and land attribution should be supervised by a democratic state.

A lot of modern ‘science’ these days is all about agendas, all about justifying the centralization of power, and ultimately all about bringing a global marxist state.

Some estimations are saying that Global Warming could kill between 1.5 and 3 billions of humans during 70 next years.
So, you can understand that scientists working on it may be preoccupied by agendas.
I don’t think that scientists want centralization of power.
For most of them, consequence is that is that they can’t work on subject they want.
I think that your feeling correspond more about a reaction to centralization of power induced by capitalism.
Currently, scientists are only working on subjects that are financed.
And subjects financed are the ones the market expect to gain profits from or politics expect to gain power from.
In theory, in democracy, they also have to convince politics. But politics choices are supposed to be expression of citizens will.
And I don’t think they are marxist, too. That is just a legitimate expectation to expect a global international cooperation to solve a global crisis.

Is there a global warming ? was a question thirty years, ago.
Nowadays, after thirty years of studies, there is a scientific consensus about it. It is real.

Following your logic, if you are not in favor of dictatorship of commercial oligarchy, rich enough to bias market choices ; you can only be in favor of dictatorship of a military oligarchy.
No. There is something in between called democracy. Instead of decisions based on transactions, you make decisions based on vote.
OK. Politics can be corrupted. No system is perfect.
But if power of transactions is minimized by law, it becomes less easy to corrupt it.

This song seems to fit… lol