How will 3D printing affect society?

[Captain Red]

How do you think 3D printing will affect our society. If we say that eventually you will be able to make things like food and guns with it. Will it affect the revolution? Will it affect capitalism?

[motion denied]

Lolbertarians seem to think so. Their wet dreams about self-protection ought to be fulfilled... Yeah...

I think it's completely irrelevant.

Could I print a printer and have like a shit ton of printers though?

[aristos]

Has the ability to burn your own CDs/DVDs killed the CD/DVD pressing industry?
Has the ability for you to right now go forward and build your own bike killed the bicycle manufacturing industry?
Does people planting food in their backyard mean the end of industrial farming?

[Slavic]

Its a hobbyist activity, nothing more nothing less.

I do see 3D printing becoming useful in an industrial setting. Printing reduces excess waste and I can see manufacturers picking up such technology to decrease waste.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think it will be a useful technology under communism, but it's not going to fundamentally alter capitalism.

[tuwix]

How do you think 3D printing will affect our society. If we say that eventually you will be able to make things like food and guns with it. Will it affect the revolution? Will it affect capitalism?

It has potential to dismantle the rest of industry. But only when it will develop to be something as color 2D printer. Industry will eat certain level try block its development. Maybe it will start when there emerge first 3D cars.

And possible dismantling of industry will produce a mass of people without a job. The state will have to employ them or there will be a revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know a whole lot about the potential applications of something like this, but on the surface it seems like it would be a labor saving technology for machine parts manufacturing.

Most likely a profitable application would mean some companies make a whole lot of money for a short time as certain kinds of manufacturing can reorganize themselves and replace a bunch of workers with a handful of techs.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It has potential to dismantle the rest of industry. But only when it will develop to be something as color 2D printer. Industry will eat certain level try block its development. Maybe it will start when there emerge first 3D cars.

Because all of us have blocks of aluminum, glass and other expensive materials lying around, and the expertise to put the printed pieces back together.

Rapid prototyping could have interesting implications for large-scale industrial production. But at the moment it is far inferior to a good CNC machine tool station. Th desktop 3D printers that only print soft plastic are mostly a gimmick.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

No one technology can alter an entire economic system; that's out of the question. But at the same time, it is important. I think that we're at the brink of a new Industrial Revolution. Go to a fast food joint in Europe, and you'll find a machine taking your order instead of an employee. Machines are beginning to do our thinking for us. Soon, they'll be doing our craftsmanship for us too. These 3d printers are versatile. They can print all kinds of things--from guns to houses to couches to pizzas. And they're a budding technology--trust me when I say that in a couple years, they will just explode.Boom! They will be everywhere faster than you can guess.

Manufacturing jobs will be lost in large numbers. Of course, they won't disappear, but there will be fewer, and that means that for a while, there'll be some frustrated unemployed people whose skills have suddenly become useless.

We might see "neo-Luddites"--this anger at technology, at computers, and printers, at progress, for leaving some folks behind. That happened a lot during the 19th century. Craftsmen would run into factories and smash every machine they could find out of frustration, because those machines were literally devouring their cash.

Or, we could see a more constructive response. People are less ignorant and more open-minded than they were in the past, which doesn't mean a lot, but it means something. Maybe it means that more people will join the radical left, realizing that a system based on corporate profit is not beneficial to the public as a whole.

Do 3d printers mean the end of the world as we know it--the end of capitalism, or its eternal endurance? No. But technology still helps shape our society. Don't underestimate it.

[d3crypt]

It would be cool under communism. We could make 3d printed sex toys :grin:

[Captain Red]

It would be cool under communism. We could make 3d printed sex toys :grin:http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8914634/The_3D_dildo

[Firebrand]

No one technology can alter an entire economic system; that's out of the question.

The steam engine
The Spinning Jenny
The internal combustion engine
The computer
The telephone
Electricity
The blast furnace
The horse plough
The printing press
The wheel
Fire

(This isn't a comprehensive list, just a few things off the top of my head)

PS- the luddites were acting in an entirely rational way. The owner brought in new machines, they got fired, they starved. Breaking the machines meant the owner would have to hire them again. The equipment cost enough that the owners often couldn't afford to replace ones that were destroyed. They were acting to protect their own interests, not out of any kind of technophobic unconstructive impulses.

[ckaihatsu]

The steam engine
The Spinning Jenny
The internal combustion engine
The computer
The telephone
Electricity
The blast furnace
The horse plough
The printing press
The wheel
Fire


And here it is theoretically:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

[aristos]

The steam engine
The Spinning Jenny
The internal combustion engine
The computer
The telephone
Electricity
The blast furnace
The horse plough
The printing press
The wheel
Fire

(This isn't a comprehensive list, just a few things off the top of my head)

PS- the luddites were acting in an entirely rational way. The owner brought in new machines, they got fired, they starved. Breaking the machines meant the owner would have to hire them again. The equipment cost enough that the owners often couldn't afford to replace ones that were destroyed. They were acting to protect their own interests, not out of any kind of technophobic unconstructive impulses.

As a technofile myself, I still have to object that those examples of technology altered entire economic systems all by themselves. The ancient world and the medieval ages have plenty examples of sophisticated automation by it was rarely used for more than extravagant toys and ritual purposes. The Inca knew about the wheel, but used it only for toys. The Chinese invented gunpowder but used it almost exclusively for fireworks before they got wind of Europeans building canons. Certainly, technology shapes our world and most problems are of technical nature but on its own no one piece of technology can completely unseat the socio-economic organisation it resides within. Ray Kurzweil's obsessive insistence that the Soviet Union fell apart because of xerox machines is an example of such technology-fixated stupidity.

And yes, 3D printing may well replace CNC mills and lathes, and what not, but by that time it will have outgrown the DIY 3D printer one might have at home and essentially become industrial machinery itself. Such time is not particularly near.
For example, even today with the abundance of high quality inkjet and laser printers most mass produced imagery is printed using offset printing, which is essentially a late 19th century technology.

[Chainsaw]

It'll be a step closer to rendering Capitalism fully obsolete.

[Creative Destruction]

Could I print a printer and have like a shit ton of printers though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project

[Creative Destruction]

I don't have any reason to be dour about 3D printing. I was extremely skeptical at first, but the hobbyists are doing some pretty fucking exciting things. But on the professional side, there is a research team that "printed" -- using a large scale printer -- a house with a concrete filament. (http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printer-builds-house-in-24-hours-2014-1) There's experimental filaments now, like wood filament, that puts wooden furniture within the realm of being 3D printed. I've heard of NASA messing around with 3D printing food, but I haven't looked too much into it. But, I mean, if we can 3D print processed foods (and we're nearing being able to fucking grow meat for mass consumption, as well as exploring more efficient ways of growing fruits and vegetables), that alone will revolutionize agriculture and how we make food.

But the things you can do with 3D printing on a personal scale, printing consumer items, it's pretty damn amazing, even if it is in its infancy. Imagine, though, being able to print out different technologies? The ability to print out whole components for a motherboard, routers, any means of communication.

It's generally hard for me to get excited about much, but this is something that does excite me. My major issue with it is the kinds of filaments used right now kind of suck in terms of environmental impact. However, there's new materials being developed that have the potential to replace petroleum plastics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrilk).

With all of that said, the existence of these technologies -- although, for a good part, open-source and can be self-replicated depending on the kinds of machine you have -- does not change the general economic system. It has revolutionary potential, I believe, but we need to figure out a way to tap its revolutionary potential and use it against capitalism.

eta. Or, for example, capitalists will end up using these open source technologies to further close the technology off to everyone:

http://bigrep.com/1/

What would be cool is if people got together and created an open-source response to this, which grossly violates the spirit of the original RepRap project. (eta2: looks like I spoke too soon: http://reprap.org/wiki/LeBigRep)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

The Chinese invented gunpowder but used it almost exclusively for fireworks before they got wind of Europeans building canons.


And by fireworks I assume you mean the bombs, grenades, rockets and fire-lances all used in war in china from the 10th century onwards? I apologise if I seem confrontational but it's a myth that gunpowder was predominantly used as an amusement before Europeans came along - indeed, rockets and bombs were in use in the Indian subcontinent as well a good while before gunpowder was widely used in Europe. The oldest surviving metal gun is a bronze hand-cannon dating from the second half of the 13th century - and it was found in north-eastern China. Perhaps as depressing as the fact is, people realised the destructive capacity of black powder quite rapidly and were perfectly willing to put it to that use.

E:

I realise this is flirting with being off-topic so i'll put out my own opinion on 3d printing - cool as it is, the printers themselves are bulky and relatively expensive, likewise I believe the medium that they print with. It's an incredible technology with a wide variety of uses - but let's be honest, who can make the most of the tech - those few radicals of any stripe who can afford the cost of having a printer, or even several printers to use - or the fewer still who could afford whole production-lines based around 3d printing?

[bryantsisto]

It'll be a step closer to rendering Capitalism fully obsolete.

I have to agree. It's the beginning of a capitalistic world.

[Sardonica]

I find 3D printing to be a fascinating technology.

It could open up a lot of possibilities for people outside of corporations to design things.

I hope that technology forces society to operate in different manner over time... making the whole setup where we do "work" for several hours an impractical way of distributing resources.

Most of my hope for the future of humanity rests in technology. I believe technology tends to help considerably in the creation of new social paradigms.

[tallguy]

No one technology can alter an entire economic system; that's out of the question. But at the same time, it is important. I think that we're at the brink of a new Industrial Revolution. Go to a fast food joint in Europe, and you'll find a machine taking your order instead of an employee. Machines are beginning to do our thinking for us. Soon, they'll be doing our craftsmanship for us too. These 3d printers are versatile. They can print all kinds of things--from guns to houses to couches to pizzas. And they're a budding technology--trust me when I say that in a couple years, they will just explode.Boom! They will be everywhere faster than you can guess.

Manufacturing jobs will be lost in large numbers. Of course, they won't disappear, but there will be fewer, and that means that for a while, there'll be some frustrated unemployed people whose skills have suddenly become useless.

We might see "neo-Luddites"--this anger at technology, at computers, and printers, at progress, for leaving some folks behind. That happened a lot during the 19th century. Craftsmen would run into factories and smash every machine they could find out of frustration, because those machines were literally devouring their cash.

Or, we could see a more constructive response. People are less ignorant and more open-minded than they were in the past, which doesn't mean a lot, but it means something. Maybe it means that more people will join the radical left, realizing that a system based on corporate profit is not beneficial to the public as a whole.

Do 3d printers mean the end of the world as we know it--the end of capitalism, or its eternal endurance? No. But technology still helps shape our society. Don't underestimate it.Those Luddites you spoke of; the reason that term has such negative/derisory connotations is because the displacment of workers the Luddites were protesting against was offset by new industries springing up to take the slack, However, this growth of new industries was only possible due to a seemingly endlessly increasing economy. This, in turn was born off the back of a seemingly endlessly increasing access to key industrial resources; most important of all being energy in the form of hydrocarbons.

However, we are now at or near the limits of physical growth in the global economy due to global industrial resource limits; most notably, energy. That being the case, the central flaw in capitalism that Marx originally identified becomes finally fully exposed; namely that once all workers have been displaced by technology, the customer base of the capitalist bosses (those displaced workers) collapses. Marx merely got the timing wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-printed-titanium-bicycle-frame/30760/

[Creative Destruction]

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-printed-titanium-bicycle-frame/30760/

that is seriously so fucking cool.

[Hit The North]

Once Google and NASA have perfected their super quantum computer (http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/google-artificial-intelligence-and-the-supercomputer-video/), it will be able to use 3D printers to construct its unstoppable army of robots.

We is fucked.

[ckaihatsu]

Most artificial intelligence technologies are functionally isolated, which is to say they focus on a particular area of intelligence, be it language, learning, spatial awareness, communication, etc., but they are not well enough developed to be used in an integrated manner. The usefulness of these technologies will initially be applied to such seemingly mundane tasks as retrieving better Google search results and optimizing user personalization, but after they are sufficiently developed these technologies will quickly begin to be integrated in the hopes of creating the mythical beast: strong AI, a humanly conscious and intelligent computer.

Some scientists are skeptical, or at the very least, wary of unbridled optimism. There are those who doubt even the possibility that computer intelligence can ever reach a level comparable to human intelligence. Others are concerned by the idea that if such a feat is possible, what evidence do we have that it will be friendly to humans.


Just don't do it, then:





I mean to impress upon everyone that the 'purely autonomous, purely individualistic' paradigm for the proposed technology is a *misconception* to begin with -- maybe it would be possible if inorganic matter somehow managed to self-assemble and grow and evolve the way *organic* matter has on the earth, but that's not the case. No matter how complex and powerful technology can become it's not going to be possible to give it a 'blank slate', intention-wise, because technology is, by definition, the product of *human* intentions.

I don't think *anyone* here would have a problem with *politicizing* any potential tech issue, and calling for individuals to be held accountable for whatever complications arise, the way we would with *any other* societal-type issue.

*This* is the way we should conceptualize all of this, not as some future 'metal baby' that grows to usurp its human parents and then all of humanity.





Technological Singularity

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2704244&postcount=13