You’ll Someday Manufacture Anything You Want and Governments Will Not Stop You

[Hydrogen]

From DIY guns to designer drugs, classic-car parts, and human livers, 3D printing promises a dynamic and uncontrollable world.

In the very near future, governments will lose the ability to keep guns, drones, and other forbidden goods out of the hands of their subjects. They'll also be rendered impotent to enforce trade and technology embargoes. Power is shifting from the state to individuals and small groups courtesy of additive manufacturing—aka 3D printing—technology.

Additive manufacturing is poised to revolutionize whole industries—destroying some jobs while creating new opportunities. That's according to a recent report from the prestigious RAND Corporation, and there's plenty of evidence to support the dynamic and "disruptive" view of the future that the report promises.

It's all pretty cool, if you look forward to a future that just won't fit under rulers' thumbs.

"The simplicity and low cost of [3D printing] machines, combined with the scope of their potential creations, could profoundly alter global and local economies and affect international security," write RAND's Trevor Johnston, Troy D. Smith, and J. Luke Irwin in "Additive Manufacturing in 2040."

To their credit, the authors see additive manufacturing not only as a "disruptive threat," but also as a "powerful enabler." They quote one industry expert who raves about the potential to "print electronics, insulators, conductors, plastic substrates all together without degradation." Likewise, a health expert tells them, "The medical field will be transformed dramatically … We will be able to print livers, or we can print pieces of arteries for heart surgery."

The authors also note that 3D printing represents a loss of control by government officials. Five years after the creation of the first 3D-printed firearm by Cody Wilson, the RAND authors see technology continuing to re-balance the power relationship between individuals and the state.

"At the domestic level, point-of-sale consumption will no longer be an opportunity for governmental control of risky goods, such as firearms and drones," they write. "State sovereignty is predicated on a monopoly of force and, at a minimum, the capacity to regulate arms. [Additive manufacturing] will further relax this control, giving private citizens greater access to lethal weapons and other tools of violence."

Not mentioned in the report, but noted in a related RAND article, is "the potential for new street drugs, custom-printed from chemicals."

Yes, this could mean—as the report foresees—more risk of crime and terrorism in the future. The authors pose scenarios in which terrorists penetrate targets unarmed and use existing 3D printers inside the defensive perimeter to create weapons.

OK. Maybe.

But criminals and terrorists are already pretty well supplied around the world, via black markets, state sponsors, and often their own manufacturing capability. Forget ISIS—it's the shopkeepers afraid of crime and denied the means of self-defense, or the deliberately disarmed and abused minority suffering under a hostile government, who are most likely to find the acquisition of arms easier courtesy of new technology.

Additive manufacturing also eases the availability of spare parts—especially in isolated settings and for old or unusual equipment. That's why the United States Marine Corps has embraced the technology for fabricating replacements in the field, and fanciers of classic cars see 3D printing as a great alternative to hunting for rare parts and paying through the nose for the privilege.

"When a product fails and certain replacement parts are unavailable or scarce, 3D printing offers a means for a quick and efficient repair," noted a paper presented at the 2015 Product Lifetime and the Environment Conference.

And the innovations that keep weapons functioning in the field and vintage cars cruising the roads will just as easily benefit an airline forbidden to make purchases on the world market. Subject to international sanctions, Iran's domestic airline "had become infamous for its crashes as the aging fleet struggled to fly using only 'smuggled or improvised parts,'" notes the RAND report. But the company is gaining the ability to make what it needs.

This "might reduce the number of accidents," sniffs the RAND report, yet "that benefit comes at the cost of weakening the effectiveness of sanctions, which represent a basic tool for managing geopolitical challenges." But many observers might think that it's a positive development when end users can create critical replacement parts on the fly, even if it deprives squabbling politicians of the ability to hold airline passengers as hostages.

A technology that can fabricate replacement parts at the point of use can create a lot more, too. Johnston, Smith, and Irwin cite estimates that 10 years from now, additive manufacturing will be responsible for between 5 and 50 percent of goods sold, and up to 90 percent two decades out.

That scale of industrial transformation is likely to mean big changes in where and when goods are produced—potentially creating (the authors say) new dangers. They open the paper with a hypothetical attack by terrorists radicalized by high unemployment in their country because "factories that once assembled more-specialized goods have been replaced by local [3D] printers in the markets to which those goods were once exported." But that's only looking at what's lost—considering the horse-drawn carriage makers, to use an old example, without also acknowledging the automobile manufacturing jobs that came to replace them.

Later in the paper, the authors concede that "business opportunities that do not even exist yet, such as the production of human organs, could emerge" as additive manufacturing progresses," and "thus, products and perhaps whole industries could move to different locations in the figure even as the frontier itself advances."

Well, yes. Dynamic change can be disruptive, but it also means new opportunity and prosperity.

The authors also worry some about the potential for new hacking targets posed by 3D printers, in which software change might result in sabotaging a whole run of products. But that sort of danger pales compared to the dangers posed by cyberattacks on existing large-scale manufacturers, who would seem to represent much more tempting targets than a decentralized world of small printers.

To me, the ratio of risk to reward in additive manufacturing recommends a firm embrace of the technology. But even if it didn't—even if I were to join the control-freaky among us, panic, and try to cram the genie back in the bottle—it's too late to turn back.

Additive manufacturing "machines could soon be able to replicate themselves, with organizations such as RepRap and Fab@home providing freely available open-source schematics on how to manufacture the necessary parts," Johnston, Smith, and Irwin notes. Soon, "point-of-sale controls will not be able to limit (or even track) the proliferation of" 3D printers. And if policymakers try to control the creation and exchange of disapproved designs, "online communities, black markets, and other venues for exchange will make any number of plans and designs readily accessible worldwide."

So rolling back the DIY revolution, or somehow crippling or tracking 3D printers, is out of the question. Instead of fretting about the latest wave of empowering innovations, let's embrace them. Sure, they pose some potential dangers, as does every new development. But they also offer the opportunity for individual empowerment, growing prosperity, and wild new possibilities in a world where governments are less able to restrict, disarm, and otherwise bully their subjects. And that uncontrolled future is coming whether anybody likes it or not.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/12/you-can-soon-manufacture-anything

With bitcoin having potential to empower society and neglected unbanked demographics via paradigm shifting banking, finance and investment back into the hands of the individual. It might be worthwhile to acknowledge other innovations like additive manufacturing, 3d printers, which have similar potential to reshape business and economies.

Individuals being able to produce their own goods, guns, drugs, electronics could have a powerful decentralizing effect upon industries like healthcare which are often expensive and unaffordable. It is possible an alliance between crypto and DIY 3D printing could represent a natural progression for both industries.

[1715544651]

1715544651

[1715544651]

1715544651

[neliawesome]

That is a worst case scenario if that will happened.Free to manufacture of any kind can affect the peacefulness of a nation.Yes theres a good benefit of it but in exchange theres no peace at all.Imagine if a country will full of drugs & guns manufacturer.Do you think theres a peace?The answer is no.Thats why every country has a rules/laws to protect the people and nation itself.

[davis196]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

[Kronos21]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

Lol! In this case, you will need to buy printers and components for printing. Who makes it? Customer demand is constantly changing. Business is being rebuilt to the needs of customers, but it is always ready to meet the demand. Capitalism will never cease to exist. It's like a Hydra. Cut off one tentacle and two new ones will grow.

[jseverson]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

Well you still need to gather the materials to print with somehow. If 3D printing technology ever became this futuristic, it's only going to mean that businesses will shift to cater to it and its essentials. Kind of like how smartphones spawned industries revolving around apps, accessories, etc., but in a much larger scale. I also imagine there will be fewer corporations, but they'll also likely be much larger lol.

This does decentralize manufacturing though, and would effectively kill/cripple it, which isn't much different from crypto and banking. I would have never thought crypto and 3D printing were similar in any way until today lol.

[Cult]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

Lol! In this case, you will need to buy printers and components for printing. Who makes it? Customer demand is constantly changing. Business is being rebuilt to the needs of customers, but it is always ready to meet the demand. Capitalism will never cease to exist. It's like a Hydra. Cut off one tentacle and two new ones will grow.

Totally agree. There were luddites in the 19th century who were convinced that the technical progress and automatization would destroy workplaces and leave a lot of people out of job. Did it happen? Of course, not. In fact, our life only got better as automatization made alot of goods and services more affordable. People's needs just changed and it created new workplaces.

[charlotte04]

From DIY guns to designer drugs, classic-car parts, and human livers, 3D printing promises a dynamic and uncontrollable world.

In the very near future, governments will lose the ability to keep guns, drones, and other forbidden goods out of the hands of their subjects. They'll also be rendered impotent to enforce trade and technology embargoes. Power is shifting from the state to individuals and small groups courtesy of additive manufacturing—aka 3D printing—technology.

Additive manufacturing is poised to revolutionize whole industries—destroying some jobs while creating new opportunities. That's according to a recent report from the prestigious RAND Corporation, and there's plenty of evidence to support the dynamic and "disruptive" view of the future that the report promises.

It's all pretty cool, if you look forward to a future that just won't fit under rulers' thumbs.

"The simplicity and low cost of [3D printing] machines, combined with the scope of their potential creations, could profoundly alter global and local economies and affect international security," write RAND's Trevor Johnston, Troy D. Smith, and J. Luke Irwin in "Additive Manufacturing in 2040."

To their credit, the authors see additive manufacturing not only as a "disruptive threat," but also as a "powerful enabler." They quote one industry expert who raves about the potential to "print electronics, insulators, conductors, plastic substrates all together without degradation." Likewise, a health expert tells them, "The medical field will be transformed dramatically … We will be able to print livers, or we can print pieces of arteries for heart surgery."

The authors also note that 3D printing represents a loss of control by government officials. Five years after the creation of the first 3D-printed firearm by Cody Wilson, the RAND authors see technology continuing to re-balance the power relationship between individuals and the state.

"At the domestic level, point-of-sale consumption will no longer be an opportunity for governmental control of risky goods, such as firearms and drones," they write. "State sovereignty is predicated on a monopoly of force and, at a minimum, the capacity to regulate arms. [Additive manufacturing] will further relax this control, giving private citizens greater access to lethal weapons and other tools of violence."

Not mentioned in the report, but noted in a related RAND article, is "the potential for new street drugs, custom-printed from chemicals."

Yes, this could mean—as the report foresees—more risk of crime and terrorism in the future. The authors pose scenarios in which terrorists penetrate targets unarmed and use existing 3D printers inside the defensive perimeter to create weapons.

OK. Maybe.

But criminals and terrorists are already pretty well supplied around the world, via black markets, state sponsors, and often their own manufacturing capability. Forget ISIS—it's the shopkeepers afraid of crime and denied the means of self-defense, or the deliberately disarmed and abused minority suffering under a hostile government, who are most likely to find the acquisition of arms easier courtesy of new technology.

Additive manufacturing also eases the availability of spare parts—especially in isolated settings and for old or unusual equipment. That's why the United States Marine Corps has embraced the technology for fabricating replacements in the field, and fanciers of classic cars see 3D printing as a great alternative to hunting for rare parts and paying through the nose for the privilege.

"When a product fails and certain replacement parts are unavailable or scarce, 3D printing offers a means for a quick and efficient repair," noted a paper presented at the 2015 Product Lifetime and the Environment Conference.

And the innovations that keep weapons functioning in the field and vintage cars cruising the roads will just as easily benefit an airline forbidden to make purchases on the world market. Subject to international sanctions, Iran's domestic airline "had become infamous for its crashes as the aging fleet struggled to fly using only 'smuggled or improvised parts,'" notes the RAND report. But the company is gaining the ability to make what it needs.

This "might reduce the number of accidents," sniffs the RAND report, yet "that benefit comes at the cost of weakening the effectiveness of sanctions, which represent a basic tool for managing geopolitical challenges." But many observers might think that it's a positive development when end users can create critical replacement parts on the fly, even if it deprives squabbling politicians of the ability to hold airline passengers as hostages.

A technology that can fabricate replacement parts at the point of use can create a lot more, too. Johnston, Smith, and Irwin cite estimates that 10 years from now, additive manufacturing will be responsible for between 5 and 50 percent of goods sold, and up to 90 percent two decades out.

That scale of industrial transformation is likely to mean big changes in where and when goods are produced—potentially creating (the authors say) new dangers. They open the paper with a hypothetical attack by terrorists radicalized by high unemployment in their country because "factories that once assembled more-specialized goods have been replaced by local [3D] printers in the markets to which those goods were once exported." But that's only looking at what's lost—considering the horse-drawn carriage makers, to use an old example, without also acknowledging the automobile manufacturing jobs that came to replace them.

Later in the paper, the authors concede that "business opportunities that do not even exist yet, such as the production of human organs, could emerge" as additive manufacturing progresses," and "thus, products and perhaps whole industries could move to different locations in the figure even as the frontier itself advances."

Well, yes. Dynamic change can be disruptive, but it also means new opportunity and prosperity.

The authors also worry some about the potential for new hacking targets posed by 3D printers, in which software change might result in sabotaging a whole run of products. But that sort of danger pales compared to the dangers posed by cyberattacks on existing large-scale manufacturers, who would seem to represent much more tempting targets than a decentralized world of small printers.

To me, the ratio of risk to reward in additive manufacturing recommends a firm embrace of the technology. But even if it didn't—even if I were to join the control-freaky among us, panic, and try to cram the genie back in the bottle—it's too late to turn back.

Additive manufacturing "machines could soon be able to replicate themselves, with organizations such as RepRap and Fab@home providing freely available open-source schematics on how to manufacture the necessary parts," Johnston, Smith, and Irwin notes. Soon, "point-of-sale controls will not be able to limit (or even track) the proliferation of" 3D printers. And if policymakers try to control the creation and exchange of disapproved designs, "online communities, black markets, and other venues for exchange will make any number of plans and designs readily accessible worldwide."

So rolling back the DIY revolution, or somehow crippling or tracking 3D printers, is out of the question. Instead of fretting about the latest wave of empowering innovations, let's embrace them. Sure, they pose some potential dangers, as does every new development. But they also offer the opportunity for individual empowerment, growing prosperity, and wild new possibilities in a world where governments are less able to restrict, disarm, and otherwise bully their subjects. And that uncontrolled future is coming whether anybody likes it or not.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/12/you-can-soon-manufacture-anything

With bitcoin having potential to empower society and neglected unbanked demographics via paradigm shifting banking, finance and investment back into the hands of the individual. It might be worthwhile to acknowledge other innovations like additive manufacturing, 3d printers, which have similar potential to reshape business and economies.

Individuals being able to produce their own goods, guns, drugs, electronics could have a powerful decentralizing effect upon industries like healthcare which are often expensive and unaffordable. It is possible an alliance between crypto and DIY 3D printing could represent a natural progression for both industries.

Well, I doubt that, because somehow if the Government notices you as a threat to the economy, then they will try to stop you will all force.

[Yakamoto]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

Well you still need to gather the materials to print with somehow. If 3D printing technology ever became this futuristic, it's only going to mean that businesses will shift to cater to it and its essentials. Kind of like how smartphones spawned industries revolving around apps, accessories, etc., but in a much larger scale. I also imagine there will be fewer corporations, but they'll also likely be much larger lol.

This does decentralize manufacturing though, and would effectively kill/cripple it, which isn't much different from crypto and banking. I would have never thought crypto and 3D printing were similar in any way until today lol.

Current 3D printing does not have the ability to print fine electrical components due to the resolution of the printing ability, along with the fact that it remains a specialized process with a relatively advanced series of machines required to develop the complex components. Things like firearms and drugs can be printed because of a relatively low need for specificity, since firearms will still work on loose tolerances, just not at their peak performance. Drugs need a process that can be done with tools from your local Home Depot or whatever. The manufacture of some things is still way beyond 3D printing now and likely into the near future as well.

[kaya11]

The world will be in chaos and massive deaths will occur when that happens. Law and order should be maintained, humans needs to be ruled by some one and that is the way it is.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.

No kidding--they won't even need to make 3D printers in a factory anymore.

This is some pretty wild stuff.  But can you imagine if 3D printers were able to print pharmaceuticals?  That would drive the drug companies out of business, and before you say that that would be a good thing:  if they went out of business, there wouldn't be any research on new drugs.  That would be true in a lot of other industries as well, I'm sure, and I don't see that as a good thing.

[bengsabeng]

I am interested in the title in the thread. no need to wait long, even now you can produce whatever you want, as long as it is good and does not harm others, the government will support you.

[MMysterious]

Governments rule is to regulate. So there is no way they won't stop you if the government finds your doing something destructive on its national interest. Everyone is free to do whatever we want but there will be consequences when you won't follow government laws.

[Basmic]

I am interested in the title in the thread. no need to wait long, even now you can produce whatever you want, as long as it is good and does not harm others, the government will support you.

Each person has their own concepts about the dangers of products. I can produce a machine that can kill a man but can save someone's life. You can make food supplements that make food taste better but after a while will kill a lot of people. By what criteria does the government determine the degree of danger of production?

[dothebeats]

Basically anyone can manufacture and create whatever it is that their imaginations take them to, but in order to distribute them legally you need to have trademarks and copyrights for it for someone to not go and steal it and monetize your own creation. You also need to register your business to the government in order to pay whatever taxes you might incur on your business venture. Also, do remember that if your creation has the potential to inflict harm on other citizens, or cause some form of public outcry and/or whatnot, the government would still try to seize your creation and detain you for what it's worth.

[Hydrogen]

Current 3D printing does not have the ability to print fine electrical components due to the resolution of the printing ability, along with the fact that it remains a specialized process with a relatively advanced series of machines required to develop the complex components.

One thing that stands out about 3d printing are those machines that print DNA sequences and enable hobbyist biohackers.

SGI-DNA has launched the world's first DNA printer. The BioXp 3200 system is an automated personal genomic workstation that builds and clones DNA fragments virtually hands-free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmU8-9KfJU4

Then there are claims we'll someday be able to affordably 3d print replacement organs for transplantation purposes:

Could 3D printing solve the organ transplant shortage?

Erik Gatenholm first saw a 3D bioprinter in early 2015. His father, Paul, a professor in chemistry and biopolymer technology at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, had bought one for his department. It cost somewhere in the region of $200,000. “My father was like, ‘This thing can print human organs,’” Gatenholm recalls, still awestruck. “I said, ‘Bullshit!’ Then it printed a little piece of cartilage. It wasn’t cartilage, but it was like, this could be cartilage. That was the moment when it was like, ‘This is frickin’ cool!’”

Gatenholm, who had long owned a regular 3D printer, decided then that he wanted to do something in 3D bioprinting. His language might be a bit Bill & Ted – he grew up between Sweden and the US, where his father is a visiting professor – but his intent and ambitions are very serious. Gatenholm had started his first biotech company aged 18 and he realised that if this machine had the potential to print organs, like his father said, then it had the potential to radically change the world of medicine.

There is a global shortage of organs available for lifesaving transplants. In the UK, for example, you can now expect to wait an average of 944 days – more than two-and-a-half years – for a kidney transplant on the NHS. There’s a similar shortage of liver, lungs and other organs. The lack of transplant tissues is estimated to be the leading cause of death in America. Around 900,000 deaths a year, or around one-third of all deaths in the US, could be prevented or delayed by organ or engineered tissue transplants. The demand, simply, is endless.

Gatenholm’s father introduced him to Héctor Martínez, one of his students who was doing a PhD on tissue engineering, and early on another student, Ivan Tournier, was also involved in the brainstorming. “We were talking about doing some experiments,” says Gatenholm, who is 27, tall and handsome even by Swedish standards.

“So I said, ‘Why don’t we just go online and buy the ink we need?’ And Ivan said, ‘Well, there’s no ink. You can’t buy it.’ And I was like, ‘What do you mean?’ It was the dumbest thing I ever heard. There’s a bunch of printers on the market, just buy the ink. And he said, ‘No, you don’t understand, there is no ink. You have to make it yourself, you have to mix something.’ So I was like, ‘Just make an ink then!’”

Cellink was born from this lightbulb moment in January 2016. Although the technology is the stuff of science fiction, the business principle is classic “razor and blades”. In this model, which is as old as the inventor King Gillette, at the turn of the last century, you practically give away the razor and you make the money on the disposable blades. And repeat, for ever. Or inkjet printers: everyone knows the serious returns are in the replacement ink cartridges.

In bioprinting, Gatenholm and Martínez developed and brought to market the world’s first standardised bioink: it is made primarily from a material called nanocellulose alginate, which is extracted in part from seaweed. If you owned a 3D bioprinter, here, finally, was a product you could effectively buy off the shelf.

The impact of Cellink, especially considering its tender years, has been remarkable. The company has already won a slew of awards: for innovation and entrepreneurialism, as well as the rapturous backing from Sweden’s version of Dragons’ Den. Ten months after its launch, Gatenholm went to the stock market, becoming listed on Nasdaq First North. The initial public offering was oversubscribed by 1,070%.

When I meet Gatenholm in Gothenburg, he still seems to be coming to terms with his company’s newfound liquidity. The office, frankly, is chaotic: there’s an iron on the floor and suit jackets on a peg, in case he’s called on to attend an impromptu client meeting. He and 32-year-old Martínez are working 16-hour days as standard. “The couch is nice to sleep on,” laughs Gatenholm. His office doesn’t actually have anywhere to sit. Cellink is taking on staff so quickly that Gatenholm and Martínez had to give up their chairs to new employees. “We donated them to science,” says Gatenholm wryly.

But Gatenholm is clear: bioprinting’s time is now. “As an entrepreneur, you’re always looking for a blue ocean,” he says. “Entrepreneurs are always asking, ‘Where’s a new area that you become the name of it? And you can claim it?’ I guess I saw bioink and bioprinting to be one of those.”

He shakes his head in disbelief: “No one was doing the ink!”

Bioprinting, as Gatenholm cheerily accepts, is something of a trippy idea and one that raises some ethical concerns. The principles are very similar to conventional 3D printing: you start by using a computer program to make a virtual representation of what you’d like to make and then a printer builds it slice by slice – sometimes around a pre-prepared scaffold – until you have the finished object. But instead of jewellery, little statues or parts for cars, bioprinters offer the potential to create living tissue.

In the beginning, this might mean printing skin or cartilage, which are relatively simple structures and are more straightforward to grow outside the body. Eventually, however, the pioneers of this technology believe they will be able to create complex organs, such as hearts and livers, from scratch. These could then be used in human transplants.

Scientists and commercial companies around the world are working on the project. In fact, something of a race is on. San Diego-based Organovo has been around since 2007 and has had some success in printing parts of lung, kidney and heart muscle. In 2015, it announced a partnership with the cosmetics behemoth L’Oréal on a plan to supply 3D-printed skin. Ultimately, the goal is to eradicate the need for animal trials.

L’Oréal is committing massive resources to bioprinting. In September last year, the company revealed that its scientists were also working with the France-based startup Poietis. The aim this time was to produce synthetic hair follicles. This, it turns out, is devilishly complex: there are more than 15 different cell types in each follicle and there is a cyclical process of fibre production that needs to be stimulated in vitro.

Many have tried, all have failed, but L’Oréal and Poietis are confident they are close to cracking it. The key is the bioprinter that Poietis has developed: most machines push bioink through a nozzle; theirs uses a laser that deposits cells one by one, at a rate of 10,000 drops per second, without damaging the cells. “The way it works is actually quite simple and is similar to inkjet printing,” Fabien Guillemot, the CEO and chief scientific officer of Poietis, explained in the video announcing the collaboration. “It prints 3D structures, in this case, biological tissues, by successively layering microdrops of cells on a surface.”

Poietis calls its innovation 4D bioprinting. “The fourth dimension is time,” said Guillemot. “Because our laser-assisted bioprinting technology can print the cells basically one at a time, it enables us to guide the interaction between the cells and their environment until they produce the biological functions we are looking for.”

In the short to medium term, L’Oréal hopes that its sunscreens and age-defying serums will work more effectively because it can now endlessly test products on a material that reacts exactly like human skin. Perhaps your hair will look more lustrous after using its shampoo, but it’s obvious that the impact of such technology could reach far beyond the cosmetics aisle of the supermarket.

If skin can be printed in a lab, then it’s not a stretch to imagine it being used to treat severe burns. At present, skin grafts, which can lead to bleeding and infection and typically involve a long recovery time, are the most common form of treatment for such burns.

Meanwhile, the developments in synthetic hair follicles appear to open the way for commercial products that reduce hair loss or even implants. “Obviously, our objective for the future is to be able to test innovative molecules using systems of follicles created in vitro,” says José Cotovio, of L’Oréal’s research and innovation department, “but also to increase our understanding of the key processes behind phenomena such as hair ageing, hair loss and hair growth.”

This is just the tip of it – other researchers are working on how to create human organs. “There’s enormous human benefit in bioprinting,” says Gatenholm. “You die because your organs break. That’s why you die. If we can start replacing them, maybe we can extend the human lifespan… That’s really neat!”

We are a little way off from these developments being a reality. But not too far: bioprinted skin could be five years away, thinks Gatenholm. “Within 10 years, we’ll start seeing some implants in the cartilage field, either partial or full,” he says. “Replacement organs, it’s our lifetime.” He adds, smiling: “It’s in our lifetime.”

Already, inevitably, there are some ethical concerns. These range from fears over the quality and the efficacy of artificial skin and implants to the accusation that bioprinting will allow humans to “play God”. Perhaps the most thorough investigation of these issues has been undertaken by a team at the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies department at the University of Edinburgh.

The researchers, led by Dr Niki Vermeulen and Dr Gill Haddow, are unfazed by the horror-movie fantasy of a bioprinted Frankenstein’s monster. “Assuming that God exists, and is someone who can create and influence life, there are already lots of technologies that allow human beings to play God, such as genetics,” says Haddow. “Bioprinting allows people to make small parts of the body and is used for medical applications.”

A much bigger hurdle that 3D bioprinting needs to overcome, they believe, are the costs. Although it is tempting to hope that the ability to make artificial organs will solve the problem of waiting lists, that is unlikely to be the case. “This is an extremely expensive technology that, if it is realised, only a few will be able to afford,” warns Vermeulen. “There is a risk that the health inequalities and postcode lottery that currently exist will also make it unavailable for most people.”

In short, they conclude, the problems and delays that patients experience in the NHS, the US healthcare system and elsewhere “will persist in the context of bioprinting”.

“Ideally, you’d like to think that exporting a relatively cheap bioprinter to a country or region with a non-optimal healthcare structure would enable people to have access to the therapies such a machine could provide. In reality, these printers can only work within an existing healthcare infrastructure that has the capacity to make use of it.”

Cost has certainly been a prohibitive barrier in these early days of 3D bioprinting. The best machines, such as EnvisionTEC’s 3D Bioplotter and RegenHU’s 3DDiscovery, are priced in excess of £150,000 and, as a result, are usually only found in labs at universities. However, here, too, Cellink is keen to shake things up a little. Although it started out supplying bioink, the company soon moved into hardware. On the table next to us in Gatenholm’s office is “Bob”, his pet name for the Inkredible+ 3D bioprinter that Cellink developed and which he carts around trade shows.

The Inkredible+ is an attractive machine: a little smaller than a hotel room minibar, it is clean and white and has blue LEDs. But what really catches the eye is the price. Cellink makes three 3D bioprinters, which cost from just £7,600 to £29,900. The savings, Gatenholm explains, come in part from using cost-effective 3D printer components instead of super-expensive motor rail systems. Also, again in the spirit of the razors and blades business model, Cellink knows that the more people own 3D bioprinters, the more bioink it will sell.

Gatenholm is proud that his company is driving down the costs of 3D bioprinting. While Cellink’s clients include MIT, Harvard and University College London, the company is also making the new technology available to hobbyists. Gatenholm doesn’t know how these people will use their machines and inks – perhaps for printing tissues to test drugs or taking cells from a cancerous tumour and using multiple versions to work out how best to treat it – but that is what makes the new technology so exciting.

“Many of those big bioprinting companies are really pissed off,” says Gatenholm. “But to be honest, the consumers are the ones who drive the market and the consumers want to do this. And for us, I don’t know where the cure for cancer is going to come from. I don’t know if it’s India, or Japan, or South America, or New York, but we want to give everybody a chance to work on it.”

Why would we want to bioprint a heart?
Apart from its geometry, the heart is one of the least complicated organs in the body. It doesn’t perform complicated biochemistry like the liver and kidneys and it is well understood by science, unlike other organs such as the brain. For this reason, the heart could theoretically be one of the easiest organs to bioprint and therefore a good place for the bioprinting industry to start. There are 3,500 people in Europe on the waiting list for a heart transplant, many of whom have needed a new heart for more than two years.

How would you bioprint a heart?
The most promising method could prove to be bioprinted cell scaffolds. Instead of printing layer upon layer of living cells to form a 3D structure, like a conventional 3D printer would do with plastic or metal, the bioprinter would first be used to print a biodegradable scaffold structure of the heart, a kind of skeleton for cells. This scaffold would mimic the heart’s extracellular matrix that provides structural support to cells and helps direct them to where they should be. Heart cells could then be printed into the scaffold, where they would interact and link to form the structure of the heart. After the cells mature into the full structure of the heart, the scaffold could be broken down, leaving a fully functioning heart ready for transplantation. This technique does already exist, albeit on a smaller scale. A scaffold was used to bioprint a small patch of working heart muscle, which was shown to be able to repair a mouse heart that had been damaged by a heart attack.

Why can’t we bioprint a heart already?
Bioprinting a small patch of muscle and bioprinting a whole heart are very different feats. But why is this? There is one problem with creating whole organs that has to be overcome: blood vessels. All blood vessels have proved difficult to create with bioprinting, but creating capillaries, which can be smaller in diameter than the smallest cell, has been nearly impossible. Manufacturing a working vascular system would be such a huge achievement that Nasa is offering a $500,000 prize for the first research team that can do it. The Vascular Tissue Challenge will award the prize for a 1cm thick piece of human tissue with a fully working blood system that can survive for 30 days in vitro.

How far away are we from bioprinting our organs?
Estimates for a date when organ bioprinting will be viable vary wildly, with one team claiming that they will be able to bioprint a heart within six years. No one knows for certain when these techniques will be approved as safe to use for human transplants. However, the sheer number of research scientists working in the 3D bioprinting field, coupled with developments in an industry that is predicted to be worth more than $1.3bn by 2021, means that we can be sure that it isn’t too far away. Agnes Donnelly

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/will-3d-printing-solve-the-organ-transplant-shortage

I'm not certain what the main obstacle would be to 3d printers creating circuit boards or silicon components. From a fabrication perspective machines which can etch silicon @ small nanometer processes probably are expensive and difficult to come by. That could be the main obstacle. In a sense, it might be fair to say intel and amd chips are 3d printed and components like resistors, transistors and capacitors are manufactured. Perhaps no one has yet found a way to make a downsized machine which can produce those types of components at prices the general public can afford? That's an interesting point you've brought up.

But can you imagine if 3D printers were able to print pharmaceuticals?  That would drive the drug companies out of business, and before you say that that would be a good thing:  if they went out of business, there wouldn't be any research on new drugs.  That would be true in a lot of other industries as well, I'm sure, and I don't see that as a good thing.

I think I saw an episode of HBOs Vice where they investigated DIY drug makers(here's a summary):

Hamilton Morris went to China and New Zealand to explore the global boom in the market for synthetic drugs. This is is Debrief from Season 3 Episode 5 of VICE on HBO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLD3AKoyV5Q

It brought up interesting points about how synthetic DIY drug makers operating out of their garage can make illegal drugs that are technically legal simply by changing the chemical structure to something that isn't explicitly banned.

There might be some type of synthetic drug revolution occurring although 3d printers aren't involved afaik.

[mkhadazz]

yes you are right, someday I have to be able to produce anything that can be developed and I will make the government will not be able to stop what I produce, not forever the government can rule.

[stompix]

Basically anyone can manufacture and create whatever it is that their imaginations take them to

As @jseverson said it above
Now you can't.
Printing machines still need materials to do that and there are things that require such conditions that you won't be able to do it in your garage.
You can't print a gold ring without gold and you won't be able to create bullets without gunpowder.

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.

Well you still need to gather the materials to print with somehow. If 3D printing technology ever became this futuristic, it's only going to mean that businesses will shift to cater to it and its essentials. Kind of like how smartphones spawned industries revolving around apps, accessories, etc., but in a much larger scale. I also imagine there will be fewer corporations, but they'll also likely be much larger lol.

It will be a semi-decentralization.
As you said it, you will need materials to print it.

So, instead of going to Walmart to buy a baseball bat for your kid you're going to Walmart to buy the materials to print a baseball bat for your kid.  . And for this, you're going to also have to buy a printer...

I would have never thought crypto and 3D printing were similar in any way until today lol.

I just hope the 3d printing business won't have a Bitmain leading it that would insert some code in your printer and in the morning you wake up with an indoraptor in your basement

[cluit]

Damn… dude, you’re so confused and don’t even know what you’re saying. How do you think that your idea is good one? To me it makes no single sense. Tell me how you would like it when everyone start producing their own guns and drugs? Don’t you know that will cause people to be manufacturing fake drugs at home selling to others? As for guns, you think is a good idea if we are all to be allowed to be walking around with guns? ☹️Just think of what you have just said.

And by the way, Bitcoin does not give you freedom, the government is still in complete control. Seriously, people like you are the reasons why we need leaders. If everyone is allowed to do as they wish, I swear most of us would all be dead by now.

[Chint_82]

with our own work we will feel more free, we can produce anything as long as it does not violate the law and the government can not do anything to stop it, they have to support every thing that if useful for its people, and we are free to do anything we want

[Hydrogen]

Damn… dude, you’re so confused and don’t even know what you’re saying. How do you think that your idea is good one? To me it makes no single sense. Tell me how you would like it when everyone start producing their own guns and drugs? Don’t you know that will cause people to be manufacturing fake drugs at home selling to others? As for guns, you think is a good idea if we are all to be allowed to be walking around with guns? ☹️Just think of what you have just said.

And by the way, Bitcoin does not give you freedom, the government is still in complete control. Seriously, people like you are the reasons why we need leaders. If everyone is allowed to do as they wish, I swear most of us would all be dead by now.

Knowledge can be utilized for good or evil. It is dual use technology. An example of this is nuclear power which can be used to build bombs or nuclear reactors which power thousands of homes. If people are able to produce their own pharmaceutical drugs which treat illness and disease, they also will have the power to produce narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines. This dual use paradigm exists anywhere knowledge, science and technology are to be found.

Already in the world we have terrible people, criminals and terrorists who profit from drug production. Will circumstances become worse if that power is taken from them and people gain the ability to cut criminals and terrorists out of the drug supply chain? Likewise, people producing guns doesn't concern me. There are many armed women who protect themselves and their families from criminals attempting to break into their homes. Things like guns can be used for positive purposes & can be used to prevent crime.

Some nations with the highest percentages of gun ownership also have lowest statistics for gun issues. Blaming *everything* on guns and drugs, that could represent a gross oversimplification of economic and social circumstances which lead to things like drug abuse and gun violence. There isn't necessarily a *silver bullet* one click solution to solving problems faced by humanity. Following the media narrative does more harm than good imo as the media's stance acts as a crutch which exists to prevent people from thinking about things.

[gambitcoin53]

it is like creating your own coin, this is one way of ruining the market status, ICO for short, we can see today that a lot of ICO are coming out and popping out of the blue, trying to level the price gap versus bitcoin. all of these are a result of the desperation to level with the current status of its competitors, still applies the rule of economics, the law of supply and demand.

[stayeduptolate]

From DIY guns to designer drugs, classic-car parts, and human livers, 3D printing promises a dynamic and uncontrollable world.

In the very near future, governments will lose the ability to keep guns, drones, and other forbidden goods out of the hands of their subjects. They'll also be rendered impotent to enforce trade and technology embargoes. Power is shifting from the state to individuals and small groups courtesy of additive manufacturing—aka 3D printing—technology.

Additive manufacturing is poised to revolutionize whole industries—destroying some jobs while creating new opportunities. That's according to a recent report from the prestigious RAND Corporation, and there's plenty of evidence to support the dynamic and "disruptive" view of the future that the report promises.

It's all pretty cool, if you look forward to a future that just won't fit under rulers' thumbs.

"The simplicity and low cost of [3D printing] machines, combined with the scope of their potential creations, could profoundly alter global and local economies and affect international security," write RAND's Trevor Johnston, Troy D. Smith, and J. Luke Irwin in "Additive Manufacturing in 2040."

To their credit, the authors see additive manufacturing not only as a "disruptive threat," but also as a "powerful enabler." They quote one industry expert who raves about the potential to "print electronics, insulators, conductors, plastic substrates all together without degradation." Likewise, a health expert tells them, "The medical field will be transformed dramatically … We will be able to print livers, or we can print pieces of arteries for heart surgery."

The authors also note that 3D printing represents a loss of control by government officials. Five years after the creation of the first 3D-printed firearm by Cody Wilson, the RAND authors see technology continuing to re-balance the power relationship between individuals and the state.

"At the domestic level, point-of-sale consumption will no longer be an opportunity for governmental control of risky goods, such as firearms and drones," they write. "State sovereignty is predicated on a monopoly of force and, at a minimum, the capacity to regulate arms. [Additive manufacturing] will further relax this control, giving private citizens greater access to lethal weapons and other tools of violence."

Not mentioned in the report, but noted in a related RAND article, is "the potential for new street drugs, custom-printed from chemicals."

Yes, this could mean—as the report foresees—more risk of crime and terrorism in the future. The authors pose scenarios in which terrorists penetrate targets unarmed and use existing 3D printers inside the defensive perimeter to create weapons.

OK. Maybe.

But criminals and terrorists are already pretty well supplied around the world, via black markets, state sponsors, and often their own manufacturing capability. Forget ISIS—it's the shopkeepers afraid of crime and denied the means of self-defense, or the deliberately disarmed and abused minority suffering under a hostile government, who are most likely to find the acquisition of arms easier courtesy of new technology.

Additive manufacturing also eases the availability of spare parts—especially in isolated settings and for old or unusual equipment. That's why the United States Marine Corps has embraced the technology for fabricating replacements in the field, and fanciers of classic cars see 3D printing as a great alternative to hunting for rare parts and paying through the nose for the privilege.

"When a product fails and certain replacement parts are unavailable or scarce, 3D printing offers a means for a quick and efficient repair," noted a paper presented at the 2015 Product Lifetime and the Environment Conference.

And the innovations that keep weapons functioning in the field and vintage cars cruising the roads will just as easily benefit an airline forbidden to make purchases on the world market. Subject to international sanctions, Iran's domestic airline "had become infamous for its crashes as the aging fleet struggled to fly using only 'smuggled or improvised parts,'" notes the RAND report. But the company is gaining the ability to make what it needs.

This "might reduce the number of accidents," sniffs the RAND report, yet "that benefit comes at the cost of weakening the effectiveness of sanctions, which represent a basic tool for managing geopolitical challenges." But many observers might think that it's a positive development when end users can create critical replacement parts on the fly, even if it deprives squabbling politicians of the ability to hold airline passengers as hostages.

A technology that can fabricate replacement parts at the point of use can create a lot more, too. Johnston, Smith, and Irwin cite estimates that 10 years from now, additive manufacturing will be responsible for between 5 and 50 percent of goods sold, and up to 90 percent two decades out.

That scale of industrial transformation is likely to mean big changes in where and when goods are produced—potentially creating (the authors say) new dangers. They open the paper with a hypothetical attack by terrorists radicalized by high unemployment in their country because "factories that once assembled more-specialized goods have been replaced by local [3D] printers in the markets to which those goods were once exported." But that's only looking at what's lost—considering the horse-drawn carriage makers, to use an old example, without also acknowledging the automobile manufacturing jobs that came to replace them.

Later in the paper, the authors concede that "business opportunities that do not even exist yet, such as the production of human organs, could emerge" as additive manufacturing progresses," and "thus, products and perhaps whole industries could move to different locations in the figure even as the frontier itself advances."

Well, yes. Dynamic change can be disruptive, but it also means new opportunity and prosperity.

The authors also worry some about the potential for new hacking targets posed by 3D printers, in which software change might result in sabotaging a whole run of products. But that sort of danger pales compared to the dangers posed by cyberattacks on existing large-scale manufacturers, who would seem to represent much more tempting targets than a decentralized world of small printers.

To me, the ratio of risk to reward in additive manufacturing recommends a firm embrace of the technology. But even if it didn't—even if I were to join the control-freaky among us, panic, and try to cram the genie back in the bottle—it's too late to turn back.

Additive manufacturing "machines could soon be able to replicate themselves, with organizations such as RepRap and Fab@home providing freely available open-source schematics on how to manufacture the necessary parts," Johnston, Smith, and Irwin notes. Soon, "point-of-sale controls will not be able to limit (or even track) the proliferation of" 3D printers. And if policymakers try to control the creation and exchange of disapproved designs, "online communities, black markets, and other venues for exchange will make any number of plans and designs readily accessible worldwide."

So rolling back the DIY revolution, or somehow crippling or tracking 3D printers, is out of the question. Instead of fretting about the latest wave of empowering innovations, let's embrace them. Sure, they pose some potential dangers, as does every new development. But they also offer the opportunity for individual empowerment, growing prosperity, and wild new possibilities in a world where governments are less able to restrict, disarm, and otherwise bully their subjects. And that uncontrolled future is coming whether anybody likes it or not.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/12/you-can-soon-manufacture-anything

With bitcoin having potential to empower society and neglected unbanked demographics via paradigm shifting banking, finance and investment back into the hands of the individual. It might be worthwhile to acknowledge other innovations like additive manufacturing, 3d printers, which have similar potential to reshape business and economies.

Individuals being able to produce their own goods, guns, drugs, electronics could have a powerful decentralizing effect upon industries like healthcare which are often expensive and unaffordable. It is possible an alliance between crypto and DIY 3D printing could represent a natural progression for both industries.

Obviously I can simply understand your feelings that what you like to say and I am completely in favour of you. The condition of bitcoin is something like this only SATOSHI NAKAMOTO the so called inventor of bitcoin has invested bitcoin for people benefits and it is proving the same that it is like boon for the humanity but due to some illegal uses of bitcoin, government is against of bitcoin and I feel like I invested something and I want government will not ban it.

[stompix]

Knowledge can be utilized for good or evil. It is dual use technology. An example of this is nuclear power which can be used to build bombs or nuclear reactors which power thousands of homes. If people are able to produce their own pharmaceutical drugs which treat illness and disease, they also will have the power to produce narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines. This dual use paradigm exists anywhere knowledge, science and technology are to be found.

Why did you jump to drugs and farmaceuticals and not continue with the nuclear option?
What if everybody could build his own nuclear reactor in the basement.
Or even better, his own personal nuclear bomb?

To be honest I don't see the dual use in this situation. What's the good part in everybody having his Fat Man in the garage?

Some nations with the highest percentages of gun ownership also have lowest statistics for gun issues. Blaming *everything* on guns and drugs, that could represent a gross oversimplification of economic and social circumstances which lead to things like drug abuse and gun violence. There isn't necessarily a *silver bullet* one click solution to solving problems faced by humanity. Following the media narrative does more harm than good imo as the media's stance acts as a crutch which exists to prevent people from thinking about things.

Hmm...
Japan, homicide rate 0.28 , beat that!!!!!

[ausbit]

From DIY guns to designer drugs, classic-car parts, and human livers, 3D printing promises a dynamic and uncontrollable world.

In the very near future, governments will lose the ability to keep guns, drones, and other forbidden goods out of the hands of their subjects. They'll also be rendered impotent to enforce trade and technology embargoes. Power is shifting from the state to individuals and small groups courtesy of additive manufacturing—aka 3D printing—technology.

Additive manufacturing is poised to revolutionize whole industries—destroying some jobs while creating new opportunities. That's according to a recent report from the prestigious RAND Corporation, and there's plenty of evidence to support the dynamic and "disruptive" view of the future that the report promises.

It's all pretty cool, if you look forward to a future that just won't fit under rulers' thumbs.

"The simplicity and low cost of [3D printing] machines, combined with the scope of their potential creations, could profoundly alter global and local economies and affect international security," write RAND's Trevor Johnston, Troy D. Smith, and J. Luke Irwin in "Additive Manufacturing in 2040."

To their credit, the authors see additive manufacturing not only as a "disruptive threat," but also as a "powerful enabler." They quote one industry expert who raves about the potential to "print electronics, insulators, conductors, plastic substrates all together without degradation." Likewise, a health expert tells them, "The medical field will be transformed dramatically … We will be able to print livers, or we can print pieces of arteries for heart surgery."

The authors also note that 3D printing represents a loss of control by government officials. Five years after the creation of the first 3D-printed firearm by Cody Wilson, the RAND authors see technology continuing to re-balance the power relationship between individuals and the state.

"At the domestic level, point-of-sale consumption will no longer be an opportunity for governmental control of risky goods, such as firearms and drones," they write. "State sovereignty is predicated on a monopoly of force and, at a minimum, the capacity to regulate arms. [Additive manufacturing] will further relax this control, giving private citizens greater access to lethal weapons and other tools of violence."

Not mentioned in the report, but noted in a related RAND article, is "the potential for new street drugs, custom-printed from chemicals."

Yes, this could mean—as the report foresees—more risk of crime and terrorism in the future. The authors pose scenarios in which terrorists penetrate targets unarmed and use existing 3D printers inside the defensive perimeter to create weapons.

OK. Maybe.

But criminals and terrorists are already pretty well supplied around the world, via black markets, state sponsors, and often their own manufacturing capability. Forget ISIS—it's the shopkeepers afraid of crime and denied the means of self-defense, or the deliberately disarmed and abused minority suffering under a hostile government, who are most likely to find the acquisition of arms easier courtesy of new technology.

Additive manufacturing also eases the availability of spare parts—especially in isolated settings and for old or unusual equipment. That's why the United States Marine Corps has embraced the technology for fabricating replacements in the field, and fanciers of classic cars see 3D printing as a great alternative to hunting for rare parts and paying through the nose for the privilege.

"When a product fails and certain replacement parts are unavailable or scarce, 3D printing offers a means for a quick and efficient repair," noted a paper presented at the 2015 Product Lifetime and the Environment Conference.

And the innovations that keep weapons functioning in the field and vintage cars cruising the roads will just as easily benefit an airline forbidden to make purchases on the world market. Subject to international sanctions, Iran's domestic airline "had become infamous for its crashes as the aging fleet struggled to fly using only 'smuggled or improvised parts,'" notes the RAND report. But the company is gaining the ability to make what it needs.

This "might reduce the number of accidents," sniffs the RAND report, yet "that benefit comes at the cost of weakening the effectiveness of sanctions, which represent a basic tool for managing geopolitical challenges." But many observers might think that it's a positive development when end users can create critical replacement parts on the fly, even if it deprives squabbling politicians of the ability to hold airline passengers as hostages.

A technology that can fabricate replacement parts at the point of use can create a lot more, too. Johnston, Smith, and Irwin cite estimates that 10 years from now, additive manufacturing will be responsible for between 5 and 50 percent of goods sold, and up to 90 percent two decades out.

That scale of industrial transformation is likely to mean big changes in where and when goods are produced—potentially creating (the authors say) new dangers. They open the paper with a hypothetical attack by terrorists radicalized by high unemployment in their country because "factories that once assembled more-specialized goods have been replaced by local [3D] printers in the markets to which those goods were once exported." But that's only looking at what's lost—considering the horse-drawn carriage makers, to use an old example, without also acknowledging the automobile manufacturing jobs that came to replace them.

Later in the paper, the authors concede that "business opportunities that do not even exist yet, such as the production of human organs, could emerge" as additive manufacturing progresses," and "thus, products and perhaps whole industries could move to different locations in the figure even as the frontier itself advances."

Well, yes. Dynamic change can be disruptive, but it also means new opportunity and prosperity.

The authors also worry some about the potential for new hacking targets posed by 3D printers, in which software change might result in sabotaging a whole run of products. But that sort of danger pales compared to the dangers posed by cyberattacks on existing large-scale manufacturers, who would seem to represent much more tempting targets than a decentralized world of small printers.

To me, the ratio of risk to reward in additive manufacturing recommends a firm embrace of the technology. But even if it didn't—even if I were to join the control-freaky among us, panic, and try to cram the genie back in the bottle—it's too late to turn back.

Additive manufacturing "machines could soon be able to replicate themselves, with organizations such as RepRap and Fab@home providing freely available open-source schematics on how to manufacture the necessary parts," Johnston, Smith, and Irwin notes. Soon, "point-of-sale controls will not be able to limit (or even track) the proliferation of" 3D printers. And if policymakers try to control the creation and exchange of disapproved designs, "online communities, black markets, and other venues for exchange will make any number of plans and designs readily accessible worldwide."

So rolling back the DIY revolution, or somehow crippling or tracking 3D printers, is out of the question. Instead of fretting about the latest wave of empowering innovations, let's embrace them. Sure, they pose some potential dangers, as does every new development. But they also offer the opportunity for individual empowerment, growing prosperity, and wild new possibilities in a world where governments are less able to restrict, disarm, and otherwise bully their subjects. And that uncontrolled future is coming whether anybody likes it or not.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/12/you-can-soon-manufacture-anything

With bitcoin having potential to empower society and neglected unbanked demographics via paradigm shifting banking, finance and investment back into the hands of the individual. It might be worthwhile to acknowledge other innovations like additive manufacturing, 3d printers, which have similar potential to reshape business and economies.

Individuals being able to produce their own goods, guns, drugs, electronics could have a powerful decentralizing effect upon industries like healthcare which are often expensive and unaffordable. It is possible an alliance between crypto and DIY 3D printing could represent a natural progression for both industries.

Hmmm🤔 well, I think that whoever wrote that piece of $h!t has no sense at all. How can you be saying such a thing, are you encouraging people to start doing so? Tell me, are you happy to see individuals carrying guns around and cursing harms to innocent people? If the power should shift from the hands of the government to the hands of individuals, then you’re finished.

Armed robbers will always get away with crimes cause the government are no longer in charge and individuals can’t do anything. So stop saying such things, it makes no sense. Despite the fact that the government are corrupt, we still need them. All we pray for is the right government, the right person that will make things better for the people.

[okala]

I will be in support of such system if the major aim is to break the power of political institutions and centralized financial system. However, criminals are going to utilize such system to commit crimes against humanity.  I don't think that we are mature enough for us to render governments impotence .

[Hydrogen]

Why did you jump to drugs and farmaceuticals and not continue with the nuclear option?
What if everybody could build his own nuclear reactor in the basement.
Or even better, his own personal nuclear bomb?

To be honest I don't see the dual use in this situation. What's the good part in everybody having his Fat Man in the garage?

Hmm...
Japan, homicide rate 0.28 , beat that!!!!!

If people could play video games all day and afford all of life's basic necessities, would they engage in violence/crime? The goal here would be to make energy, manufacturing, living space and other elements of modern day society affordable and plentiful enough to decrease crime and poverty. If people have more spare time to enjoy life and spend time with their family that could decrease negative circumstances. If someone had access to their own miniature nuclear reactor and never had to pay electricity bills think about how their quality of life might increase.

Japan's homicide rate is heavily adjusted. There are cases where a body is found with cigarette burns and signs of torture where police will classify the cause of death as "suicide" if they feel they are unlikely to solve the case or find those responsible.

Hmmm🤔 well, I think that whoever wrote that piece of $h!t has no sense at all. How can you be saying such a thing, are you encouraging people to start doing so? Tell me, are you happy to see individuals carrying guns around and cursing harms to innocent people? If the power should shift from the hands of the government to the hands of individuals, then you’re finished.

Armed robbers will always get away with crimes cause the government are no longer in charge and individuals can’t do anything. So stop saying such things, it makes no sense. Despite the fact that the government are corrupt, we still need them. All we pray for is the right government, the right person that will make things better for the people.

I think that there is gross oversimplification as to where criminals come from. Many criminals would choose another path in life, if they had an alternative. Most do not want to spend their time pointing guns at people and robbing them. Its not very profitable, its not a good way to earn a living. The sad truth is, poor economic conditions, bad political policies and irresponsible fiscal management by the state create a lot more criminals and violence than guns do. Not because people are evil but rather because when people can't afford to life a decent life with what their job pays them, they have no alternatives but crime or extremism to support themselves.

If people are looking at the rise of crime and violence in society, it is closely linked to poor economic conditions, bad job markets. And those are linked to bad decisions made by those in power. The idea here is to empower the individual and enable them to have a decent life without relying on crime to feed themselves or their families. Most do not want to be criminals, they do not want to be violent. Often the main reason they resort to criminal life are they have no other options.

I will be in support of such system if the major aim is to break the power of political institutions and centralized financial system. However, criminals are going to utilize such system to commit crimes against humanity.  I don't think that we are mature enough for us to render governments impotence .

The idea isn't to break the power of political institutions. Its to reduce the degree to which people rely on things like corporations and governments. The more independent people are the less they rely upon corporations for jobs or governments for social programs. The implications of that paradigm shift could benefit society.

[robotrobert]

Knowledge can be utilized for good or evil. It is dual use technology. An example of this is nuclear power which can be used to build bombs or nuclear reactors which power thousands of homes. If people are able to produce their own pharmaceutical drugs which treat illness and disease, they also will have the power to produce narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines. This dual use paradigm exists anywhere knowledge, science and technology are to be found.

Why did you jump to drugs and farmaceuticals and not continue with the nuclear option?
What if everybody could build his own nuclear reactor in the basement.
Or even better, his own personal nuclear bomb?

To be honest I don't see the dual use in this situation. What's the good part in everybody having his Fat Man in the garage?

Some nations with the highest percentages of gun ownership also have lowest statistics for gun issues. Blaming *everything* on guns and drugs, that could represent a gross oversimplification of economic and social circumstances which lead to things like drug abuse and gun violence. There isn't necessarily a *silver bullet* one click solution to solving problems faced by humanity. Following the media narrative does more harm than good imo as the media's stance acts as a crutch which exists to prevent people from thinking about things.

Hmm...
Japan, homicide rate 0.28 , beat that!!!!!

I just do not believe in the data for such things. Can anybody tell me what index numbers do they use to calculate the data? There is not perfect index to cumulate and then calculate the data for the specific subject. The number of victims and killed in Afghanistan was far more than what they wrote in the data. The ground realities are always different and we have always been misguided by the people at the top for their own interest.

[stompix]

Why did you jump to drugs and farmaceuticals and not continue with the nuclear option?
What if everybody could build his own nuclear reactor in the basement.
Or even better, his own personal nuclear bomb?

To be honest I don't see the dual use in this situation. What's the good part in everybody having his Fat Man in the garage?

Hmm...
Japan, homicide rate 0.28 , beat that!!!!!

Japan's homicide rate is heavily adjusted. There are cases where a body is found with cigarette burns and signs of torture where police will classify the cause of death as "suicide" if they feel they are unlikely to solve the case or find those responsible.

Heavily adjustments alone won't bring it to 20 times below the US rate.
Greece, for example, has a rate of 0.75, and I doubt Greece can be seen as a perfect heaven where everybody is happy and all necessities are fulfilled with a clap.

Besides, you seem to have quite the wrong view about how life is in Japan.

If people have more spare time to enjoy life and spend time with their family that could decrease negative circumstances.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/japan-has-some-of-the-longest-working-hours-in-the-world-its-trying-to-change.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi

The goal here would be to make energy, manufacturing, living space and other elements of modern day society affordable and plentiful enough to decrease crime and poverty.

Again, Japan is one of the most expensive countries in the world, even taking into account their wages, you can't really afford that much in the big cities with the average wage.

[JerryJam]

DIY 3D printing will destroy the capitalism.
If I`m able to produce everything I need(food,clothes,tools,guns,ex.) there won`t be any need to buy that stuff from some merchant.This means that money will become obsolete,which means that all the cryptocurrencies will become obsolete.Perhaps the people will still want to purchase some services,but those services will be executed by robots and AI.
[
/quote]
If you produce goods on your own, you will still buy components from other manufacturers.You will need the material electricity to produce, etc. So the money will not become obsolete and will still be relevant.

[selena_lorde]

"3D printers are low-cost."

Since when?

Even if you can afford a printer, the conductive filaments/inks are super expensive. And, it takes hours to design and print even a single coffee mug. Advancements in technology will speed up the process and even automate the designing phase. In about 20 years, the purchasing power required to acquire the best 3D printer available in the market will be astronomical because fiat currency is probably going to suffer inflation like anything.

The smart dudes who have invested in cryptocurrency will have access to everything described in the article- good and bad. However, there are research centers that produce custom materials and the inks required to 3D DIY print.

If the government can form coalitions with these organizations, they can make use of anti counterfeiting technology to keep everything in control again- currency, commodities, products etc.

[renes]

No, you can do whatever you wish if you are able to do it and governments cannot stop you from doing it till they know about it, so it is limited.

[wxa7115]

With bitcoin having potential to empower society and neglected unbanked demographics via paradigm shifting banking, finance and investment back into the hands of the individual. It might be worthwhile to acknowledge other innovations like additive manufacturing, 3d printers, which have similar potential to reshape business and economies.

Individuals being able to produce their own goods, guns, drugs, electronics could have a powerful decentralizing effect upon industries like healthcare which are often expensive and unaffordable. It is possible an alliance between crypto and DIY 3D printing could represent a natural progression for both industries.

3D printing has the potential to change the whole world, I really think that it is going to have the power to decentralize the industry similar to what bitcoin is doing with banking and the power to print currency, it is very likely that we are going to see once again the artisan as a profession, this is already happening with people selling their products created with 3D printing on the web.

However, the technology is still very new, we can produce basic stuff but producing complex stuff like electronics will require a jump in the technology and producing medicines will be very difficult as well, but the risks are high as well, if we could produce medicines in our homes then it is entirely possible a person could produce poisons, gunpowder or even viruses.