QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunrisk3D Printing Pasta at Your TableSomething for Eveline's kitchen?I don't think so. We just read N. Myhrvold's great book "Modernist Cuisine at Home" (great in the sense that it perfectly describes innovative methods and tools to industrialize cooking). And we thought about competence vs. possibility. Getting more competence, we get better in what we did yesterday. But this has also a little danger. We might close ourselves off from the new, and consequently opportunities. "Automatons" are uncompromisingly competent.Interesting! You are entirely right about the merits (and joys) of getting more competence! Yet might it be possible to use these devices as a way to turn the direction of competence creation in new and interesting ways?For example, if one replaces a hard-to-control wood-fired stove with a perfectly controllable gas-fired stove (a "heat automaton"), then one certainly gives up on one key realm of competence development that chefs of yore had to master -- the skill it took to control the fuel and oxygen to the wood-burning chamber to create the desired level of heat at the stove top and in the oven. Yet if one adopts a heat automaton (the controllable stove top and temperature-controlled oven), then the chef can shift their competence development efforts from managing what's burning to managing what's cooking.To me, a 3D printer for food (and other similar gadgets) provides more precision in the control of some elements of the cooking process just like a modern stove provides control. Such tools shift the locus of innovation and competence development from the physical task of combining the ingredients to the mental task of designing the ingredient combinations.And with a 3D printer doing all the mixing and combining, the resident dish washer would have fewer dishes to clean. (Although perhaps more "tech support." )This is one of the most interesting questions in general.IMO, there are automated systems that help you to get better insight faster (if you play around with a geometric modeler, you explore much faster, how to create and manipulate 3D objects - Descriptive Geometry became worthless). But some of this explorative, constructive learning aspects get lost, if you embed them into process automation (if geometry is transformed into manufacturing features and operational plans to automate productions, manufacturing systems become so competent, that radical innovations are postponed. Take 3D printing itself: manufacturers were so excited about the one-set-up multi-axes milling/lathing/drilliing, injection techniques, complex free forming, ??. that it needed the DIY movement for the 3D printing break through).So, Myhrvold describes a perfect explorative learning lab for cooking, but to embed it into an industrial style kitchen might create the unintended effect of competence. Ferran Adria (former Chef of El Bully), in contrast, put emphasize on the mechanization of ingredients preparation and configuration (decomposition and recomposition), but not the process of cooking. But also his molecular cuisine went into a "dead line".The new scandinavian hype: nature-nature-nature (pointedly: cook the rind of a tree). IMO, it should be an intelligent mix (as natural as possible, as automated as required).Excellent points!Any innovation that generates performance on some dimension is going to spur incremental innovations and other co-innovations in the direction of that performance dimension AND inhibit exploration of alternatives that underperform on that target performance dimension. For example, one-set-up multi-axis subtractive machining performs at such a high level of cost-per-part and time-per-part performance that the machinist can easily reject slow, costly 3-D printing. Manufacturing technology and design technology had co-evolved so that engineers became good at making machine-manufacturable parts and machine tool makers became good at making better CNC subtractive machining tools. Although additive manufacturing can't compete with subtractive manufacturing on what subtractive manufacturing does best (mass production of a certain classes of geometric shapes), subtractive manufacturing is utterly incapable of making certain shapes that are easily imagined by people who have not had subtractive manufacturing drilled into their brains (e.g., shapes with small apertures into large voids, fractal shapes, intricate shapes, etc.). Thus 3-D printing was embraced by outsiders and will, no doubt, take engineering design in new directions.The same issue occurs in the kitchen in which the recipes evolve to work well with the existing kitchen tools and the kitchen tools co-evolve to serve the chefs that make those recipes. Yet that co-evolution would seem to inhibit entire classes of recipes that can't be made in today's kitchens.Imagine a fractal lasagna with interlaced extrusions of pastas, meats, cheeses, tomato paste, and perfectly distributed micro-inclusions of peppers, olives, anchovies, and seasonings. Such a lasagna might have intentional nonuniformities of flavour so that each bite is a bit of a surprise or maybe exactly 40% of the lasagna is spicy, 35% is mild, and 25% is vegetarian to accommodate different diner's preferences (with a pasta-baffle to prevent mixing). Or imagine a birthday lasagna with the name of guest of honor on the top.To me, 3-D printing is also quite compatible with other cooking trends in that the use of 3-D printing to create the geometric arrangement of the ingredients can be orthogonal to the sources of those ingredients (natural, local, fermented, artificially coloured, etc.) and orthogonal to the thermal technology (frying, baking, slow-cooking, raw, etc.).