Viewed, properly, as a proof of concept – the project is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of manufacturing and construction. Conceptually it could be the origin of the Star Trek “materializer”, which is nothing more than a 3D printer with formulated materials.

The obvious challenge is dealing with a future where skilled labor (manufacturing, construction) is minimized when it dis-employs the working class. Unless creatively addressed, that dis-employment will drive wages into a race to the bottom and ,ultimately, class revolt.

We could ignore this and kick the can down the road, as we are with automation. However, we would do better to consider how we can take this increased efficiency and apply it, or the benefits that result from it, to re-direct the labor productively.

This is only possible when we legally recognize that the technology and creative training that enables private enterprise to reap huge benefits while avoiding the social and human costs. Rather than a tax orientation, it is worth considering a royalty fee that funds productive employment.

Wall Street will scream and more, but “patents” that dis-employ and use public resources and/or employees educated with public resources should consider the royalty a capital cost/partnership.

The issue is way bigger than a comment – but you have light a match to burn a lamp.