These 3D Printing Houses Might Be The Answer To Homelessness

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Today, economics theories are so outdated that they are as dangerous as any form of charlatanery.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

Ok, here we go.
As for the ‘house printing’:
IMHO it’s just Geek stuff with not much use for real live projects.
Also in this article as well as in general a lot of questions about this technology
are left to be answered.
E.g.:
What material do they use? (I would guess some kind of concrete)
If it is concrete, how is the reinforcement made and integrated in the process?
How much money would this technology save?
More so as it will cost quiet some work and money to clean up the mess,
that they would call a wall.

As for Blender:
I don’t understand the question completely.
If the question was, how to model the already built house,
I think one can find ton of tutorials for that.
For the engineering of such houses; as much as I love Blender,
I think it’s the wrong tool for this work. (as any 3D software would be)
I would rather use a CAD system with BIM Features for that.

Of course this is just my humble opinion and I hope I don’t offend anyone.

I would tend to agree with you, Blender’s not exactly optimum for this sort of thing. I think the OP was asking how people would go about modeling this sort of thing, i.e. a three-d printed house in Blender.

Personally, I would just use something like Archipack, and then aplly a wave texture set to bands for the displacement or normal of the walls, as on close inspection there’s a bit of lateral ribbing visible. The sorts of structures shown in the article the OP linked to seem straightforward enough, and although Blenders not the best tool for ArchViz, there are a number of addons, some even free, which make parametric archVis modeling fairly possible.

Myself, I’m not all that interested in that kind of modeling. Three-d printing of houses is an interesting concept, but I would be concerned about durability, earthquake resistance and a lot of other elements. There are a lot of obstacles to be overcome in that field before it truly can gain widespread acceptance and use. On a separate note, I have yet to see a printed house that wasn’t as ugly as a mud hut. =)

Guys, guys, there is this:

Note that this one floundered because one of the guys ran away with a million dollars or something, of the company’s money…maybe the other guy will come back for Round 2 of making a go of it or something…? ( read this: https://futurism.com/dubai-is-going-to-be-home-to-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-skyscraper )

Then there’s this:

I also found this article:

…I just wanted to say that the part that fascinates me the most is - how does a model that I make in 3D, in Blender, get “converted into data” that’ll move that robot arm around in the correct fashion, to build the house? 3D data is 3D data, right? It’s called “slicing” or something, isn’t it? Anybody have any clue about it?

Reopening mental institutions, mandatory ‘cold turkey’ isolation rehab centres, and cracking down on ultra-liberal cities allowing open, public drug markets to flourish unchallenged is a more practical and realistic approach to the homelessness issue. The vast majority of homeless people in western cities are either mentally unwell, are drug addicts, are both, or have become either by means of the other.

I would even go further and sterilise all long-term heroin/meth/crack users. Once a junkie reaches a certain stage it is rare that there is any way back for them. Once they reach that stage they should be removed from society.

I’m in Oregon. It rains a lot here. Having an attendant fill my tank is nice. It also costs less for gas here than in neighboring states. While simultaneously hiring over 10000 people state wide.

So it costs less and pays thousands of people. What is the problem?

Do you really think that an oil company deserves those 10000 peoples wages because it made their customers do the work rather than providing service to those customers?

Isn’t reducing those regulations supposed to free up money so that those companies can create jobs?

What do you propose then? Ban vending machines, ban automated kiosks, ban self checkouts, ban self service in general?

Would the world be better if you go to any given gas station, and you have to wait a few minutes for the attendant to finish up with other people? Then you go into the convenience store and you have to find a clerk who will relay your order for a hotdog and 32 oz. soft-drink to the kitchen staff?

If that sounds like a good world, then if you want more of that you should think about getting rid of your PC and phone. Why, every email or text you send gives the sound of a mailman being laid off, and everything you create in Photoshop and Blender signals the death knell of an art supply business.

Slippery slope is yawn. I provide a real world example and you throw up a bunch of whatabouts.

Slippery slope has been proven many times over the years, so the idea of it being a fallacy is a lie, but the forum rules would prevent me from listing many of the examples.

All I am saying is that for those who perceive many forms of automation as a bad thing (due to lost jobs), they better make some massive changes to the way they live because the way they live now benefits massively from it. Just how much inefficiency do you guys want to reintroduce anyway (for the ‘common good’)?

You must really love pumping gas