The New Industrial Revolution: Are we actually ready for this?

This blind faith in endless technological progress and the ever-growing complexity of our civilization is truly touching.

Jack Johnson6 said:We’ve been hearing this same story for five or six years now. They haven't exactly marched into every American home and revolutionized the world yet. In most scenarios, there are better, more efficient technologies already available. This will find its niche, and that's it. I expect the endless cycle of articles claiming 3D printers will change everything to keep coming.

I wonder what those better or more efficient technologies might be. As far as I can tell, there isn't really an alternative. Even the aerospace industry is moving toward 3D-printed parts on a massive scale, particularly with titanium components.

On a side note, a friend of mine started a company and bought one. He’s printing robotics parts, mostly for home use to start. It costs about as much as a high-end PC. 😉

briskskipper27 said:So, what happens to the people who don't have the capacity to become engineers or designers?

The government will just hand out free bread and circuses to keep everyone from rioting—kind of like how they kept the crowds happy back in Rome when there weren't enough workers to go around. 🙂

northernsailor8 said:Yeah, it’s completely senseless hype. I suppose it's hard to see how this vague promise of faster, cheaper, and more accessible production—resulting in complex parts that traditional machines struggle with—actually matters. It feels like nothing more than hipster posturing. I guess that's probably why they recently sent it up to the ISS to print components in orbit...🙄

Are you actually trying to lecture us on stuff you clearly don't understand, or do you just lack any clue whatsoever and therefore feel like talking about everything anyway?
"Overly complex geometry"?
Why don't you be a hero and explain to the rest of us how the hell 3D printers even work?

goldengull3 said:Essentially—yes. Who would actually want to eat the exact same thing every single day? A flavor designer... now that has a certain ring to it.

What truly strikes me as profound, however, is this specific aspect... Once we master the mechanics of stem cells and the various ways they can be manipulated, we will practically be able to manufacture almost any organ using a patient's own cells. This effectively eliminates the need for donors entirely. If this technology actually comes to fruition, it would be an absolute game-changer for medicine as we know it. 🙏

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sho...new-organs.htm

hollowtrucker77 said:Are you actually trying to lecture us on stuff you clearly don't understand, or do you just lack any clue whatsoever and therefore feel like talking about everything anyway?
"Overly complex geometry"?
Why don't you be a hero and explain to the rest of us how the hell 3D printers even work?

Look, 3D printing allows for the fabrication of rocket fuel combustion chambers with geometries that simply can't be achieved through traditional manufacturing methods.

Jack Johnson6 said:This blind faith in endless technological progress and the ever-growing complexity of our civilization is truly touching.

It seems you haven't heard of the law of accelerating returns. It's statistically proven, I guess, and correlates quite closely with Moore's law.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:What truly strikes me as profound, however, is this specific aspect... Once we master the mechanics of stem cells and the various ways they can be manipulated, we will practically be able to manufacture almost any organ using a patient's own cells. This effectively eliminates the need for donors entirely. If this technology actually comes to fruition, it would be an absolute game-changer for medicine as we know it. 🙏

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sho...new-organs.htm

We are already seeing 3D printers being utilized in experimental medicine; for instance, researchers in Italy are developing a system to regenerate knee cartilage, which is a remarkably common issue. The process is relatively straightforward: you have your knee scanned in 3D, a model is printed, a nutrient-rich scaffold is prepared, and a small sample of your own cartilage is seeded onto it. Once it grows on that replica of your joint, it’s surgically implanted into your actual knee. It's a simplified version of a complex procedure, but the result is your own lab-grown tissue—not quite a perfect biological duplicate, perhaps, but infinitely superior to any synthetic substitute.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:I mean, you already have several options available in this year's Mercedes-Benz S-Class... just watch the video, it’s honestly bordering on obscene... 😁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKJ41kOghH8

Personally, I'm still rocking my parents' old Ford Focus. I've got a bike, too...

goldengull3 said:Look, 3D printing allows for the fabrication of rocket fuel combustion chambers with geometries that simply can't be achieved through traditional manufacturing methods.

I'm not entirely sure how they handle machining heavy-duty metals yet, but it really makes me wonder about the long-term survival of CNC machines in the near future. If additive manufacturing keeps evolving this quickly, what becomes of the traditional milling industry? 🤷

People are going to lose their jobs, sure, but won't that drive prices way down? Think about it: cheaper labor costs could lead to higher quality goods, faster construction, and mass-scale manufacturing via 3D printing. If we don't need nearly as many employees to get things done, everything becomes more accessible. I don't know... maybe.

3D printers are gonna be a total game changer—we’re talking massive leaps forward in efficiency once we actually start leveraging modern IT tech properly. 😍

northernsailor8 said:That sounds lovely. Let's just force everyone who spent decades studying, experimenting, and grinding to invent something into a system where any random person with more capital can simply snatch their idea, get rich off it, while the actual creators stay stuck in their basements struggling to get by.

It’s definitely a great way to encourage high-level scientific research. By the way, we saw a similar setup under old-school socialism, where the government automatically owned all patents. I suppose I don't even need to mention how those socialist nations fell so far behind in R&D that they basically lost the race against capitalism for good.

An individual researcher who gets robbed of their own work loses the drive to keep going. I guess I wouldn't feel much motivation to write anything useful if anyone could just read it and claim it as their own.

Terrible logic. There is a massive distinction between eliminating patents and copyrights—making everything public domain—and a dictatorial structure seizing ownership rights.
Furthermore, if others are allowed to copy you, then you should be able to copy them. A system where everyone copies from everyone else can actually function quite well if everyone wins. That’s why patent pooling and exchange agreements exist.

No matter how you spin it, effective copyright protection is becoming a thing of the past. Anything posted online—movies, music, 3D design files—is effectively public. You can always sell specific services, but information? Not so much. Once it’s copied once, it’s out there for free.

placidranger said:Terrible logic. There is a massive distinction between eliminating patents and copyrights—making everything public domain—and a dictatorial structure seizing ownership rights.
Furthermore, if others are allowed to copy you, then you should be able to copy them. A system where everyone copies from everyone else can actually function quite well if everyone wins. That’s why patent pooling and exchange agreements exist.

No matter how you spin it, effective copyright protection is becoming a thing of the past. Anything posted online—movies, music, 3D design files—is effectively public. You can always sell specific services, but information? Not so much. Once it’s copied once, it’s out there for free.

That isn't true; if you publish my book publicly without permission, I will pursue legal action against you without hesitation. In fact, enforcement might actually become easier, given how significantly Internet monitoring systems have improved in recent years.

But my point remains: you could spend two or three years laboring over a project and then release it freely. In fact, I believe anyone championing "open source" or the "abolition" of intellectual property should lead by example. They should say, "I spent two years writing this textbook, and now I am releasing it for public use," or "We spent five years developing this engine, and now it is available to everyone." It is best to back one's ideals with actual practice. Aside from a few Linux enthusiasts and some anonymous indie bands, I don't see many such examples. But we are drifting off-topic; feel free to start a separate thread for that.

3D printing will undoubtedly force the development of new models for protecting intellectual property. Innovation carries a cost. Knowledge and design deserve compensation. If you aren't willing to pay, then simply develop your own things.

Naturally, no one will bother you if you are printing something for your own private use, but if you intend to bring it to market, you will certainly be expected to pay.

What’s everyone’s take on this?

goldengull3 said:Essentially—yes. Who would actually want to eat the exact same thing every single day? A flavor designer... now that has a certain ring to it.

We won't even need that. Expert AI systems will probably design better food than we ever could.

By the way, the need for lawyers will vanish too. Expert legal systems will find solutions effortlessly, combing through laws and tirelessly analyzing context, consequences, and loopholes 24/7, all for pennies.

Programmers, doctors, teachers, engineers—they're all going to be sidelined.
System maintenance? Forget it. Smaller, more efficient expert systems will just maintain the bigger ones. It’s cheaper and faster.

Honestly, 99% of human labor boils down to some more or less sophisticated set of rules that expert systems will handle better and quicker. We'll probably just have the most brilliant scientists left—and maybe priests, since you can't exactly program a robot to maintain a connection to the divine. 😁

All in all, it's not even bad news.
The bad news is that human social evolution isn't keeping pace with this tech. We honestly have no clue what our role in a world like this will even be.

Anyone here actually know what sintering is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintering

Jessica Kelly4 said:We won't even need that. Expert AI systems will probably design better food than we ever could.

By the way, the need for lawyers will vanish too. Expert legal systems will find solutions effortlessly, combing through laws and tirelessly analyzing context, consequences, and loopholes 24/7, all for pennies.

Programmers, doctors, teachers, engineers—they're all going to be sidelined.
System maintenance? Forget it. Smaller, more efficient expert systems will just maintain the bigger ones. It’s cheaper and faster.

Honestly, 99% of human labor boils down to some more or less sophisticated set of rules that expert systems will handle better and quicker. We'll probably just have the most brilliant scientists left—and maybe priests, since you can't exactly program a robot to maintain a connection to the divine. 😁

All in all, it's not even bad news.
The bad news is that human social evolution isn't keeping pace with this tech. We honestly have no clue what our role in a world like this will even be.

Please, forget about expert priests and scientists. All that'll be left is Madonna, who'll show off her bits once a year on Christmas Eve at 11:59 PM. And that'll be the highlight of the whole year. ☕

goldengull3 said:That isn't true; if you publish my book publicly without permission, I will pursue legal action against you without hesitation. In fact, enforcement might actually become easier, given how significantly Internet monitoring systems have improved in recent years.

But my point remains: you could spend two or three years laboring over a project and then release it freely. In fact, I believe anyone championing "open source" or the "abolition" of intellectual property should lead by example. They should say, "I spent two years writing this textbook, and now I am releasing it for public use," or "We spent five years developing this engine, and now it is available to everyone." It is best to back one's ideals with actual practice. Aside from a few Linux enthusiasts and some anonymous indie bands, I don't see many such examples. But we are drifting off-topic; feel free to start a separate thread for that.

3D printing will undoubtedly force the development of new models for protecting intellectual property. Innovation carries a cost. Knowledge and design deserve compensation. If you aren't willing to pay, then simply develop your own things.

Naturally, no one will bother you if you are printing something for your own private use, but if you intend to bring it to market, you will certainly be expected to pay.

You aren't getting it. Of course scientists and innovators need to profit from their breakthroughs. The issue is that the traditional copyright model is fundamentally broken in an era of anonymous internet publishing. I could upload a copy of your book under your name on my site or via torrents. You're stuck. You have no one to sue because you don't even know it was me. There's no way to scrub it, and the government isn't going to shut down the entire internet over a few books. It’s smarter to stop fighting the tide and start using the tech to your advantage—which is exactly what some authors are already doing. They put the book online for free and make their money through physical copies, speaking tours, film rights, or crowdfunding platforms... Copyright is becoming unenforceable. But again, let's stay on track.

The new industrial revolution definitely includes 3D printers. It's a massive leap forward (many of them are open source).

Then you have the DIY electronics scene—Arduino and all its various clones and derivatives (also open source). Innovation is migrating from massive factories into living rooms and basements. It's a dramatic surge in innovative potential.

And then there's the infrastructure and fuel that will turn those innovations into products for the masses—cryptocurrencies, specifically Bitcoin.

Robotics will likely plateau for another 5 to 10 years until we hit some major breakthrough, but we'll see automated drones everywhere.

goldengull3 said:That isn't true; if you publish my book publicly without permission, I will pursue legal action against you without hesitation. In fact, enforcement might actually become easier, given how significantly Internet monitoring systems have improved in recent years.

But my point remains: you could spend two or three years laboring over a project and then release it freely. In fact, I believe anyone championing "open source" or the "abolition" of intellectual property should lead by example. They should say, "I spent two years writing this textbook, and now I am releasing it for public use," or "We spent five years developing this engine, and now it is available to everyone." It is best to back one's ideals with actual practice. Aside from a few Linux enthusiasts and some anonymous indie bands, I don't see many such examples. But we are drifting off-topic; feel free to start a separate thread for that.

3D printing will undoubtedly force the development of new models for protecting intellectual property. Innovation carries a cost. Knowledge and design deserve compensation. If you aren't willing to pay, then simply develop your own things.

Naturally, no one will bother you if you are printing something for your own private use, but if you intend to bring it to market, you will certainly be expected to pay.

Unfortunately for you and the rest of the crowd pushing for internet surveillance, tools to bypass that monitoring have evolved even faster. Even the NSA is pulling their hair out over it. And think about how helpless those massive copyright enforcement companies are. They don't even have access to the tech the NSA uses; their biggest move is basically joining a torrent swarm just to track down individual peers and seeders to sue them.