The question of a post-scarcity world really intrigued me throughout the reading. For one I couldn't even image the social and political implications of such a concept and I think that’s because to me, it will never happen. Greenfield brings up many amazing humanitarian projects and ideas that focus around many of our brightest innovators but they all end with the same conclusions, no tangible results. Digital fabrication never seemed like a simple step towards Adrian Bowyer’s vision of a self replicating machine, and Greenfield admits this up front, as well as providing some extremely convincing arguments towards our ability to produce a post-scarcity world but it falls flat in actuality. These machines definitely help us innovate, and design new solutions to many of our daily problems and help empower small sets of individuals to be able to take a stab at consumerism but in the end they are only just that, tools. It stands near the argument of A.I. and it’s ability to “think” for itself. The digital fabrication itself gets caught up in its own “hype” as greenfield mentions which inevitably leads to these notions of “omnipotent” in the case of computers . Another argument against the digital fabrication, post-scarcity world is the fact that it will always be cheaper to “ship something from China”, we just don’t and most likely will not be able to spread the infrastructure out to the edges to be able to provide local support against consumerism. If it is possible it is a much longer way off than Greenfield leads on, maybe much farther than any of use may ever see.