3D Printers For Peace Contest

First time accepted submitter Bas_Wijnen writes "3D printing is being condemned in the media because of the potential for printing guns. Engineers at Michigan Tech believe there is far more potential for 3D printers to make our lives better rather than killing one another. To encourage thinking about constructive uses of 3D printing technology Michigan Tech Open Sustainability Technology (MOST) Lab and Type A Machines sponsor the first 3-D Printers for Peace Contest. Designers are encouraged to consider: If Mother Theresa of Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print? What kind of designs could help reduce military spending and conflict while making us all safer and more secure? Anyone in the United States may enter and there is no cost."

Comments

Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice

[girlintraining]

But she did, in fact, preside over awful standards of care, people were denied access to medical treatment, and suffering was not alleviated, because it was considered "spiritually noble".

I have previously looked into those allegations. While she may have believed "suffering is good for the soul," it wasn't so much a denial of pain medication as a lack of access to them. Many of these clinics that were setup were in places where access to any medical care was absent.

MT also campaigned agains family planning and contraception.

Which, as someone who isn't a medical professional, I have no special problem with. I disagree with it philosophically, but I defend her right to say it.

...keeping people in poverty and away from real medical care.

You should point the finger at the governments that turned a blind eye to the suffering of their own people, not MT's attempts to provide the most basic of medical care to an otherwise totally neglected population.

Also, if you want to take issue with Hitchens,I don't really think you should imply that Henry Kissinger was among the better specimens of humanity!

I implied nothing, I simply pointed out that he has an appetite for famous people, the more famous the better.

our "exhilaration" quote is one example... I checked the context of this, and while I don't find it in good taste, it's not an uncommon description of how some people feel at the start of a war, even those on the good side.

Yes, but my point was this man has made a career out of being a malcontent, a contrarian, and going after celebrities and political positions because he can get a rise out of people. He's just coated this juvenile behavior in a veneer of intellectualism, but he is essentially a troll.

(You might consider imagining yourself as Churchill, at the moment when Hitler invaded Poland - a rather strange mix of gloom at the inevitable impending tragedy, combined with some excitement that, finally, because the evil thing has become so bad, that the world can delay acting no longer and that it will stand up and fight.)

Churchill would have been stomped out of existance if not for the attack on Pearl Harbor drawing the United States into the war. Without our support, Europe would have fallen, and there's nothing exhilerating about that possibility. Were in I in Churchill's position, yes, I would have made the same bold statements, but privately, I would have been shitting bricks.

Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice

[girlintraining]

There's a difference between "defending someone's right to say something" and arguing that they are a model human being.

Hey, I'm glad you figured that out man. But I'm not arguing she's a model human being... Those twenty-odd rewards, public opinion polls, and numerous committees and governments are arguing she's a model human being are.

Pointing out that some governments acted worse than Mother Teresa doesn't elevate Mother Teresa into a model human being. That's a cheap tactic, actually.

See, I'm a [wo]man of simple tastes. I like dynamite and gunpowder and gasoline. Do you know what all these things have in common? They're cheap. ... And effective.

If I went and robbed my neighbor and people blamed me for doing it, it would be a poor arguing tactic to start pointing out other people (serial murderers, etc) who are worse than me that "everybody should be pointing the finger at".

Oh look, a strawman. Okay, let me point out the epic fail of you here:

Scenario A: A government neglects its citizens medical care and the citizens are too poor to afford it. Someone steps in to provide 'some' medical care.

Scenario B: You steal from some citizens. The government catches you. You point to serial murderers and say "Well, what about them?"

Can you spot the difference?

As to the rest, you're attacking her beliefs, and her inaction, against a backdrop of a great many people not acting as well -- and somehow trying to say that defeats or minimizes all the good she did. That is a perverse belief and behavior.