Humans have yet to find a way to live in harmony with
their technology. Their heads create what the rest of their being often finds
disruptive, dangerous and destructive. Picture the Industrial Revolution
accompanied by a Hogarth-depicted London slum.
We know from bitter experience what disastrous impacts
technological innovation can have on social structures and human well-being,
yet despite repeated episodes we do little or nothing to prepare ourselves and
our societies for what we can see coming down the road. This, in my judgment,
is one of the more massive failures of so-called advanced societies.
We now have sitting at our collective doorstep yet another
technology that may have the power to dramatically change our means of
production and the personal and social structures that depend on that
structure. This technology is referred to as 3D Printing or Additive
Manufacturing and is promising enough to have been mentioned in President
Obama’s State of the Union address. In essence, it is a simple production
process of depositing successive layers of material on top of each other, as
dictated by a computer model, to produce three dimensional objects. The layers
can be of varying thickness, down to the micron level, and be made of a variety
of plastics and metal.
This process can create items from pharmaceuticals, to
clothing, to fully functioning hypoid gear sets that are created in a single
process with no assembly required. The following website will amaze you with objects
made by this essentially simple process of layering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xaj9jx7648.
Because the object is created from a
software program production can take place anywhere, even the home. Additionally,
production costs are so low that it can be profitable to produce only one item
and it can be specific to that individual’s need. There is no need for mass production,
warehousing, inventory, and shipping for these products. When all the
advantages are added up, especially those affecting labor costs, we are looking
at a technology that has the potential to eliminate a very large number of jobs.
Manufacturers call this process,
whether using plastic or metal, additive
manufacturing to distinguish it from conventional manufacturing, which
removes material, e.g. grinding, cutting, milling, etc. to create the
manufactured object. One of the great efficiencies of additive manufacturing is
that what are multiple-piece assembled products in conventional manufacturing
can be a single process with no assembly using additive manufacturing. Up to this
point additive manufacturing has been used mainly for quick and inexpensive prototyping
of products in their development process. It is beginning to find a role in
production itself.
This process as used by individuals
to create 3D objects, e.g. plastic jewelry, miniature statuary, etc., using printers
costing as little as $139, is generally referred to as 3D printing. Some people are concerned that this could become a major source of junk
as producing trinkets becomes as easy as printing paper.
This technology has the potential to deliver products
to the consumer, tailored to the individual’s need or desire without the need
for mass production, warehousing and distribution. Basically electrons move rather
than things. There would be a decreasing need for factories, assembly lines,
shipping, warehousing and other materials handling services.
The scope of the potential impacts of this technology
can be glimpsed in the following list that can be found on the website of the Atlantic
Council.
- Assembly lines
and supply chains could be reduced or eliminated for many products. AM can
produce the final product—or large pieces of a final product— in one
process.
- Designs, not
products, would move around the world as digital files are printed
anywhere with any printer to meet design parameters. A “STL” design
file can be sent via the Internet and printed in 3D.
- Products could
be printed on demand without the need for inventories.
- A given
manufacturing facility would be capable of printing a huge range of
products without retooling—and each printing could be customized without
additional cost.
- Production and
distribution of material products could become de-globalized as production
is brought closer to the consumer.
- Manufacturing
could be pulled away from “manufacturing platforms” like China back to the
countries where the products are consumed, reducing global economic
imbalances as export countries’ surpluses are reduced and importing
countries’ reliance on imports shrink.
- The carbon
footprint of manufacturing and transport as well as overall energy use in
manufacturing could be reduced substantially and thus global “resource
productivity” greatly enhanced and carbon emissions reduced.
- Reduced need for
labor in manufacturing could be politically destabilizing in some
economies while others, especially aging societies, might benefit from the
ability to produce more goods with fewer people while reducing reliance on
imports.
The United States, the current leader in AM technology, could
experience a renaissance in innovation, design, IP exports, and manufacturing,
enhancing its relative economic strength and geopolitical influence.
As you can see the potential impact on society
is enormous, ranging from massive unemployment to a radical reduction in the
human interaction and commonality of the workplace as well as the benefits of
massive pollution and waste reduction. What I did not see after a fairly
extensive investigation, was any thought or planning for the personal and
social impacts of this revolutionary technology.
It appears that this technology will impact
society and individuals with the same lack of planning and preparedness as our
capitalist system has displayed in the recent past.
The United States used to have the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) to advise Congress on developing technologies as
well as existing technological issues. This agency existed from 1972 to 1995.
It found disfavor with Ronald Reagan and was terminated by defunding in Newt
Gingrich’s infamous Contract With America.
Everybody agrees that technology is a, if not the, major influence on societal
concerns. That this country has no agency like, say, the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention is a fabulous failure of governmental responsibility. In the
halls of government we need the greatest cognizance of technological
development and its impacts we can get. This agency should also have the
mission to inform the public on what technology does and how it will condition
their lives. A counterweight to the hype to which the public is so often
subjected in these matters is badly needed. To get a feel for what could be
done, the publications of the OTA may be found at http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/. From what I have read of them, I think they could have been
somewhat more informative both in detail and in the implications for the
public. But at least the effort was being made and should have been retained
and improved. Gingrich declared the agency a waste when he eliminated it. I don’t
know whether this was a reflection of Republican anti-intellectualism or that the
business powers that be did not want the Congress and the public to have
objective assessments. Its reports should clearly indicate the potential
impacts, especially the social impacts, of a significant new technology and
recommend the level of oversight necessary to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts. We live in an era of increasing rates of change. It is irresponsible
not to assess, monitor and, where necessary, influence the rate and direction
of change. The Obama administration should be encouraged to reestablish the
agency to keep itself, Congress and the public aware of our technological
environment as we are made aware (or should be) of our economic environment.
Aside from all the above 3D printing issues, Rachel
Maddow reports as I write this piece that 3D Printing is being used to produce
“receivers”, which are the only part of a an assault rifle that carries the
weapon’s serial number and hence destroys the identity and control of the
weapon. Another lesson in understanding that technology can, and often does,
cut more than one way.
Bob Newhard
No comments:
Post a Comment