Innovation

3D-fantasieën

Jul 24, 2013 Esther Dyson

NEW YORK – Hoe zullen 3D-printers de wereld veranderen? Vandaag de dag kun je lezen over met 3D-printers vervaardigde juwelen en op maat gemaakte blikopeners, net zoals je dertig jaar geleden had kunnen lezen dat de pc mensen in staat zou stellen hun recepten georganiseerd te houden. Natuurlijk zijn pc's veel nuttiger geworden. Veel ondernemers en kleine zakenlieden kunnen al hun activiteiten via computers laten verlopen, en mensen houden hun recepten niet alleen georganiseerd, ze zetten ze nu ook online. Ze houden ook hun bewegingsoefeningen met een computer bij, houden toezicht op hun kinderen met behulp van een computer, en verzamelen grote aantallen digitale vrienden (of dat nu wel of niet een goed idee is).

Het internet heeft het machtsevenwicht tussen individuen en instellingen veranderd. Het heeft miljoen mensen in staat gesteld te kunnen werken zonder een baas boven zich. In plaats daarvan maken ze gebruik van 'agents' – zoals TaskRabbit of Amazon Web Services of Uber – die aanbieders en klanten aan elkaar koppelen.

Ik denk dat we rond het 3D-printen een zelfde verhaal zullen zien, nu het zich van iets nieuws ontwikkelt tot iets nuttigs en ontwrichtends – en nu het goedkoop en wijdverbreid genoeg aan het worden is om ook voor (betrekkelijk) frivole doeleinden te kunnen worden ingezet. We zullen niet alleen speeltjes voor kinderen printen, maar ook menselijke protheses – botten, en zelfs longen en levers – en uiteindelijk ook veel nieuwe machines, waaronder nieuwe 3D-printers.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Nathan Coppedge Jul 30, 2013

By an idea's originality, I mean in a kind of objective way, like (1) Is there evidence that anyone else has thought of it before (using the internet and terminology as a standard guide): add, and (2) Is the idea reviewed or modified from someone else's idea?, subtract and (3) If a modified idea, whether from a reviewer or historical development, does the idea offer an original function or perspective? If not, it will be assumed that the idea is 'unmodified' or 'unoriginal', and therefore must fit into a modular, structural, or services framework.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan Coppedge Jul 30, 2013

Another concept to bring up is a new definition of 'open corporation': a corporation that predominantly hires non-employees. These corporations could do something like run walk-in portfolio reviews for hundreds or thousands of candidate idea-holders. The company would have a platform, i.e. a general management software, manufacturing, and distribution system, which could make money on a wide variety of ideas. The profit would allow a one-time payment to the idea-holder based on a mark-down of the value of the idea. However, for the corporation, the ideas would be a permanent source of income, and would sometimes attract investors. Most of the money would stay in the pockets of the corporations, while idea-holders would be more satisfied than the unemployed.

The system could be run like a walk-in Starbucks (fast-food-type corporation), where some of the idea-holders would be transient and short-term. If there was considerable turn-over, some walk-in idea-holders could be low-pay temps who review portfolios for additional, modified ideas. What would motivate idea-holders the most is if there was a fixed, increasing pay-scale for certain types of ideas, not based on marketing, but rather based on originality, complexity, and functionality. In this way, the idea-holder doesn't feel manipulated, and becomes more dynamically engaged in the process of ideas, more like an employee, but without what I will call the 'employment disincentive'. A lot of people want small amounts of money more than once, from competing corporations. This is more of a consumer-employment paradigm than a market-level one. Therefore, it does not pose many budget problems.

Someone may say, the internet does the same thing at no expense. But recently there have been a lot of proprietary issues that would not arise if huge number of people signed waiver forms, and had limited time commitment. The motto might be 'best of all possible worlds' (call it by philosophical jargon if you must). Part of the value of the open corporation is to create new vocabularies which stimulate consumption. In this and other ways, the platform can be used to generate market-friendly systems, databases, and problem-sets which consist of information rather than products. The systems, databases, and problem-sets can then be applied to products at no expense.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan Coppedge Jul 28, 2013

In reference to economical modularity, the value is that materials can be stocked and bought in bulk. One of the only major types of factors in reducing costs in manufacturing (others might be cheap labor and cheap process).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan Coppedge Jul 28, 2013

Greater modularity would probably reduce printing costs in 3-d printing, assuming there is not a dependence on any one printing source.

I worry that 3-d printing creates too much reliance on a specialized, small-scale printing method, that is only used piecemeal, and not by mass-production. But I guess these same machines can be used by major manufacturers. At that point it just looks like a question of economics, which supposedly is already resolving in the favor of 3-d printing.

Another question, is the question of free-economy in the sense of cheaply available goods. Like Dyson says, currently there is a high reliance on real estate, but in the near future it may be more like an atomizer/ generator that makes specialized parts in a local 'manufacturing shack'.

What are the implications, aesthetically? Perhaps it integrates well with mobile citizens, who need a new cellphone at the airport, or perhaps someone who wants to design their own clothes, or personalize a consumer product. Some of this is stuff that was formerly done only on a digital level.

The real industry question, is does it work for mass-manufacturing construction materials and other modular parts, and what is the environmental impact, if someone thinks everything is made out of plastic? Perhaps aluminum will become even more popular. The other question, is does it fulfill the dreams of consumers? Can it make anything new? Is it actually fast printing, (ala waiting at an airport or bus stop)?

The mobile citizen will want fantasies fulfilled, but he will also want the technique to be useful in the broad context of corporations and industrial materials.

Is it really this useful? Or is it sort of like screen-printing meets melted plastic? I think by the time some of these questions are answered, there will be less excitement, and more hidden charges.

But if the dream of the mobile citizen could be fulfilled on the path to atomizers, it may involve a lot more than just a printer. It will involve specialized applications and mass manufacturing as well.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/CulvTL7nl

3D-fantasieën

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

3D-fantasieën

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification