Slashdot Mirror
Peer To Peer Meets Manufacturing
Crashmarik writes "Small times has an article detailing UCB advances in desktop manufacturing. They raise the possibility for effectively downloading physical objects through the net. We have allready seen the reaction "Property Holders" over downloading music, what is the likely upshot of being able to copy physical objects. More importantly what are the implications for our society as we move out of an age of scarcity to an age of plenty ?" Great article - the author of it also won The Foresight Institute's prize in communications for 2002.
When we have desktop universal constructors, then I expect the manufacturing world will kick up a stink, but unless I misunderstand the article the printers it describes can only make certain sorts of devices - mainly those containing plastics and certain types of electronics and specific sorts of movement in them. Sure, this is going to cut into the manufacturing market for some things, but nothing like a real UC could do...
Desktop manufacturing is a long, long, long way off. You can do it with plastic bits, MAYBE circuit boards, but not much else. Technologies like these have revolutionized the manufacturing process - rapid mold prototyping for casting, and C&C machining of parts.
The fact remains though that you're not going to get the strength of cast aluminum or forged metal without very expensive equipment - that's not pessimism, that's physics.
..don't panic
These are cool. You can build any *shape* you want. Too bad you're limited to one (or a few) specific materials chosen more for their useability in this process than for other useful properties. What do you do when you need a copper winding for a motor? Iron core for a transformer? Hardened steel for a bearing race?
Basically, you can use these to make toys, mockups, and maybe most of the parts for certain items. But don't expect them to replace real manufacturing anytime soon.
What motivation is there to create something, you say?
For recognition perhaps, but probably for the same reasons that open source projects work. Because somebody needs the invention to solve a problem.
You're confusing capitalism with innovation. People don't create things to make a profit. People create things to solve problems. Companies sell things to make a profit.
If there were not companies and no profits, the need for new inventions would not go away. When there are no more problems to invent solutions to, human nature dictates that we'll make more problems to solve!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
"This technology is going to be bought out and buried, just like hydrogen combustion engines in the mid-nineties."
... would get STOMPED in the market if everyone could start selling their own designs"
That is entirely an urban legend, like the 200 mpg carburetor. This did not happen: the grave is empty.
"Big Business will never let this go through, ever."
Not true either, since business can profit from such things if they actually exist
"Corporations
It does not work this way. Look at music: people still prefer to download (legal or not) the products of the major record labels, even though "Self-designed" stuff is all over the place, often legally free.
"Corporations, with their long product cycles, their relatively low rate of innovation,"
Low rate? What do you mean?
If the main resource is carbon, it is widely available. The trick will be to have the assembler 'mine' it's raw materials from its environment (plant matter, atmosphere, ...). Also, wastage will be pretty well zero, so a bare minimum of material will be required. Thirdly, having full control of the material being fabricated allows very strong structures to be built, opening the possibility of strong low density 'foam' type materials, using even smaller amounts of raw materials.
one where all needs are provided
The trick would be to figure out how to get the universal assembler to provide all the basic needs. Food, shelter, sanitation, water, energy source. Biggest problem would be that the supply of real estate is limited. It would be interesting to see where people's greed will be directed once most things have no monetary value. I suspect people will start to hoard real estate. Will we see a war when the landless manufacture weapons and attempt to stop landowners from hoarding land surplus to building a shelter on?
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs.
This is not necessarily the case. Any self respecting 'universal assembler' will be able to make a copy of itself.
There will STILL be an economy
It depends on what you mean by an economy. Surely the (forgotten) purpose of the economy is to satisfy our needs? Once needs can be satisfied without an economy, why have one? With any luck, the economy will be replaced by community. We will then live FOR those around us. It might take a bit of adjustment, but I'm sure most will cope.
No, no, no.
What you are concerned about was "totalitarianism", i.e. the philosophy that the state was all, and all citizens were subservient to it, existing only for the state. This is a separate concept from communism and socialism. The USSR, the Fascists under Mussolini, and the Nazis, were all good examples of totalitarian governments. "1984" was written as a warning against totalitarian policies.
Communism is a little different. It suggests that the means of production should be shared equally by all, and the fruits of the labor be equally divided as well. Communism as suggested by Marx was not evil at all. Modern-day china seems to be making a pretty good go of the idea; I think that aside from being a little overzealous in censorship (and their organ donor program, ha ha), they're doing fairly well.
Socialism (different yet again) suggests that a society's first duty is to its citizens, and that the purpose of government is to take care of the people (rather than, for instance, ensure the welfare of corporations, or wage ridiculous wars to help the oil industry). Canada, the most innocuous nation in the history of nations, is mostly socialist. Do you consider the canucks evil? Aside from the Kids in the Hall, I mean.
Let's be fair, kids.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!