 |
| John Locke |
"If
the first gathering made [the apples] not his, nothing else could. That labour put a
distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than
nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private
right."
- John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, chapter V: "of property"
However, we can clearly observe that this scenario does not accurately portray nor explain the current world. One reason Locke came up with to fix this was his ideas on money. Again, he began by asking a question: why do we have money? He suggests that mankind invented money because it does not go bad, and it can be stored. To explain this, he contrasts money to food. Specifically, if a man harvests more corn than he can eat, for example, then he must trade any extra corn. However, if he harvests more than that, then what good does this extra food do him? It will simply spoil and be useless. Money, on the other hand, will not spoil. Now, this same man can harvest more corn than he could reasonably consume and then trade the surplus for money, which will not go bad and can be stored. Herein lies the problem, though. This process allows stockpiling and hording of the common resources bestowed upon us. It creates and perpetuates inequality.
Recently, I thought back to this concept as I read about a revolutionary process that is making waves in our modern markets: 3D Printing. Basically, a 3D printer can print a solid object by receiving instructions through a computer. These printers are capable of producing physical objects, and come with a plethora of benefits set to change the world. This incredible invention is also known as "additive" manufacturing (as opposed to the traditional "subtractive" manufacturing). It derives this name from the fact that it creates a finished product from "nothing," as opposed to cutting or drilling away at something to reduce it to the finished product.
Check out this cool video, which explains how 3D printers work. It also discusses the future of the industry, and the advantages of this incredible technology.
Yes, this technology is intriguing. How does it relate to Locke and to his ideas about property, though? I made the connection while reading a great article published on the Economist about the implications of this growing technology on manufacturing. It says that the technology has the potential to "transform manufacturing because it lowers the costs and the risks. No longer does a producer have to make thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of items to recover his fixed costs." So, what does this mean for production? Will mass production be necessary anymore? With the cost of a 3D printer projected to be only a few hundred dollars in only a couple years, will any individual be able to design any product and be able to print it out at home? If we will eventually be able to take a product back to the printer and have it convert the material into another product (like the above video suggests), then will we not have the power to transform the makeup of one substance into another? What would this mean for inequality? What will this mean for money? Will there be such a thing as monopoly any more? Will people feel the need to keep working for currency, if the way we go about attaining goods and the way we conceptualize property entirely is different? Would this create infinite abundance?
Credits:
- The picture is a portrait of John Locke, by Sir Godfrey Kneller. It was painted in Britain in 1967, and is in the public domain. It can be found at < http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/JohnLocke.png >
- The video is from YouTube. Titled, "The 3D Printing Revolution," it is made by Explaining the Future, and is used under fair use guidelines. It can be found at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP1oBwccARY >
Hi, Michael, I really enjoyed reading your post, and it intrigued me how you related 3D printing to Locke. I thought it was unique and pretty cool. Now, I don't know if you've ever used a 3D printer before, but they're pretty cool. We sort of built/put together one at our old math and science academy, and it was pretty rad. There is, however, a limitation. What the printer does isn't really as magical as it sounds. In real life, it basically just melts and molds plastics together into shapes, and it can also color them. I know, it's not very exciting. The only thing I can really see them mass-producing is maybe a toy through 3D printing, otherwise everything would be either impossible or difficult to do. The point you brought up was interesting, though. If we had the ability to create as much of whatever we wanted, we would have a huge surplus, and we wouldn't know what to do with everything. I think it's important to keep a steady balance of supply and demand, so having 3D printers that would be able to do so much makes me a little suspicious because of what it could do to our society.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated your post about the benefits and excitement that 3-D printing might bring to the table, as well as some issues the technology might bring,
ReplyDeleteI recently researched the topic of 3-D printing for a business information technology group project. We found in our research many concerns that have arisen due to the potential popularization of 3-D printing. You touched on some concerns, but I thought I might provide some more discussion.
One concern about 3-D that has surfaced is the idea that 3-D printers possibly can give users the capability to "print" a firearm or other weapon, if they so choose. The idea is that wherever there is a 3-D printer, there could also be a weapon. Conceivably, a program containing the blueprint for a gun or knife, for example, could be given to a 3-D printer, just like a program containing the blueprint for any other product. Not only is it illegal in most states to produce guns at home, but such a great capability afforded to anybody willing to purchase a 3-D printer could prove to be dangerous to the safety of the public.
The link below has a picture of the design for the lower receiver of the AR-15, a popular firearm. In some US states, every part of this gun can be purchased without a license except for the lower receiver. With the blueprints for this final part available, users can now potentially print the part to complete the gun.
http://thingiverse-rerender.s3.amazonaws.com/renders/95/14/56/44/bb/testComponent_display_medium.jpg
Another concern about 3-D printing it its potential to reach a level of use at which manufacturing companies might begin to lose business and shut down. 3-D printing, if eventually advanced enough, might mean virtually anyone can create goods, thus resulting in a lack of incentives to buy from a store. If the use of 3-D printing becomes particularly widespread, and the majority of people decide to print their own goods instead of purchasing goods produced by manufacturing companies, the concern for the manufacturing industry would prove valid. 3-D printing might start to have various significant impacts on a variety of industries and affect the economy is a variety of ways.
It is important to note that the designs for products to be printed cannot legally be exactly identical to the designs for similar products already manufactured by companies. Rather, designs legally printed would be the work of independent designers, unless designs for popular products were released with the consent of whoever owns them.
A concern is that blueprints for popular existing products (that are currently trademarked, copyrighted, or patented by another entity) might begin to illegally circulate. This would allow users to, instead of purchasing finished products through traditional shopping mediums, print these purchasable items themselves. This is different from using blueprints specially made for the use of 3-D printers, as these blueprints are not owned by an party unwilling to permit such use. This leads to the issues of counterfeiting and intellectual property violations.
I acknowledge the many potential benefits that the widespread use of 3-D printing could bring. Being able to print objects - not just school papers - would be extremely exciting. However, we cannot leave out the various hesitations associated with relying on too heavily on the technology. Hopefully, these concerns can be properly addressed.