http://singularityhub.com/2009/04/09/3d-printing-and-self-replicating-machines-in-your-living-room-seriously/
Reprap is just one example of the 3D printing movement. The goal is to create a device that can take a 3d object, made in any number of modeling programs (some of which are open source!) and convert it into a physical object. The applications of this kind of machine are endless (and really cool looking), but one of the most significant ones is the printing of the machine itself - self replication.
Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did....Just as nobody could have predicted the impact of the steam engine in 1750—or theprinting press in 1450, or thetransistor in 1950—it is impossible to foresee the long-term impact of 3D printing. But the technology is coming, and it is likely to disrupt every field it touches. - The Economist(2011)
As amazing of an idea this is, there is another darker side to the proposed 'revolution'. Randall Monroe sums it up right here. Basically, can the common man be trusted with ownership of production? The push for openness of information has been welcomed with open arms, and the effects have been positive for the most part. However, there has yet to be any manifestations of openness in the physical world that compare to that in the digital. This could be due to the less than stellar record for attempts at 'openness of production', i.e. communism.
Karl Marx's argument for a common possession of means of production was that the 'bourgeoisie', or those who had control of production, were promoted by greed to exploit people's labor for profit. However, attempts at this model have usually resulted in dictators such as Mao and Stalin. Various smaller organizations throughout history have attempted collective ownerships, such as Shakers in early America, Essine Jews in ancient Israel, Incas, and even the LDS church practiced it with the law of consecration for a short time. However, all examples have either been in isolated communities or short-lived failures. All of the early 19th century experiments in Utopian communities had the same results. What I'm getting at is perhaps entirely open production is detrimental to society. If every blog on the internet was converted into a physical object, how many worthless pieces of plastic would there be? Although openness can generate many great ideas and encourage their proliferation, it comes at the cost of numberless amounts of useless user-generated rubbish. Perhaps society simply isn't ready for a truly open means of production. This goes to show how important the need for control is in this wave of openness. I for one don't want to open my mailbox to find tons of plastic figurines showing me how I can 'flatten my belly with these 3 simple tricks!'
Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did....Just as nobody could have predicted the impact of the steam engine in 1750—or theprinting press in 1450, or thetransistor in 1950—it is impossible to foresee the long-term impact of 3D printing. But the technology is coming, and it is likely to disrupt every field it touches. - The Economist(2011)
As amazing of an idea this is, there is another darker side to the proposed 'revolution'. Randall Monroe sums it up right here. Basically, can the common man be trusted with ownership of production? The push for openness of information has been welcomed with open arms, and the effects have been positive for the most part. However, there has yet to be any manifestations of openness in the physical world that compare to that in the digital. This could be due to the less than stellar record for attempts at 'openness of production', i.e. communism.
Karl Marx's argument for a common possession of means of production was that the 'bourgeoisie', or those who had control of production, were promoted by greed to exploit people's labor for profit. However, attempts at this model have usually resulted in dictators such as Mao and Stalin. Various smaller organizations throughout history have attempted collective ownerships, such as Shakers in early America, Essine Jews in ancient Israel, Incas, and even the LDS church practiced it with the law of consecration for a short time. However, all examples have either been in isolated communities or short-lived failures. All of the early 19th century experiments in Utopian communities had the same results. What I'm getting at is perhaps entirely open production is detrimental to society. If every blog on the internet was converted into a physical object, how many worthless pieces of plastic would there be? Although openness can generate many great ideas and encourage their proliferation, it comes at the cost of numberless amounts of useless user-generated rubbish. Perhaps society simply isn't ready for a truly open means of production. This goes to show how important the need for control is in this wave of openness. I for one don't want to open my mailbox to find tons of plastic figurines showing me how I can 'flatten my belly with these 3 simple tricks!'
No comments:
Post a Comment