💾 Archived View for station.martinrue.com › lykso › a3a897021bad4e00b5b34198b2849f42 captured on 2023-03-20 at 19:42:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Does anyone else ever have mixed feelings about 3D printing? Sometimes I wonder if the whole thing isn't just a ploy to sell more plastic.
2 years ago · 👍 sdfgeoff
@marginalia Sure. And just as I can make my own judgements on "good" and "bad" (while nonetheless finding discussion and agreement around those concepts useful) so can I make my own judgements regarding contexts. One cannot get outside of one's own head, however one may try. Still, I will find it necessary to *try* to judge what the effects of my actions may be on the world around me and whether these actions may result in "good" or "bad." Without this sort of reasoning, I cannot engage in goal-oriented behavior. · 2 years ago
@lykso Yeah, that's sort of my point, except the contexts are no less subjective than the idea of good. Contexts don't exist out in the world some place, they are labels each and every one of us place on the patterns we see around us and like everything, what we experience is *our* unique relationship with the world. · 2 years ago
@marginalia Free will is an illusion and can't be defined in terms compatible with the concept of cause and effect. But that strikes me as irrelevant to our discussion. I'm not saying people are bound to abuse all technology. I'm saying that there are definite effects that result from, e.g., developing nuclear weapons, or selling weapons in a war zone. Whether a technology is judged as "good" or "bad" can be tricky to judge, but I can say with that, as sure as there is cause and effect, technology is not, in practice, neutral. Further, I think it's wise to consider what the impact of one's actions may be before acting. · 2 years ago
@marginalia Yes, "good" and "bad" are subjective, but I still think my point stands. The things in themselves necessarily exist in a context from which they cannot be divorced. They will necessarily have an impact toward what one may consider "good" or "bad." The use of technology will be guided by its design. E.g., handguns are difficult to use as screwdrivers but quite easy to use as weapons.
Nothing has "good" or "bad" as an intrinsic quality, but they may be judged so within a context. Nothing exists without a context. · 2 years ago
@lykso I also detect a contradictory hint of fatalism in your reasoning. If people are inevitably going to abuse technology, then is its development not just as inevitable? Can good and bad even be said to exist in a world where people are just mindless automatons that follow the rules of their socioeconomic programming? Doesn't such moral judgements require free will to make even the slightest sense? And if such free will exists, how can you argue people are fated to act the way they do by their socioeconomic context? · 2 years ago
@lykso I'm not even sure what you mean when you apply the terms good and bad in terms of technology. We can say tools are good or bad based on how well they fit their purpose or how well they fit some aesthetic ideal we have, but they can't be said to be intrinsically good or bad; when we say this is good and that is bad, we are making value judgements based on our own ideals. The things in themselves just are. · 2 years ago
@ser Yeah, that would be really cool assuming certain social conditions surrounding that technology. Ever read Transmetropolitan? It's a cyberpunk series in which replicators exist. The technology itself is almost pointless without the right political, economic, and social conditions as well. (And the technology itself will certainly not make those conditions come about on its own, as those conditions are entirely dependent on humans choosing to change the terms of their relations.) · 2 years ago
@marginalia I'm not sure it's responsible to divorce the design and deployment of technology from considerations of how it is likely to be used given prevailing conditions. The tendency to do so strikes me as something of a coping mechanism. · 2 years ago
@marginalia "Technology itself" is neither good nor bad, but "technology itself" is also useless; to be useful it must be used by a human, who will necessarily exist within some sort of socioeconomic context. The design of a technology will also lend itself more to certain uses than to others, and the context within which it is released will likewise have an impact. If a technology requires the existence of perfect humans operating within a utopia for its use to be a net "good," then it's overall a bad technology IMO, no matter how impressive it may be from an engineering perspective. · 2 years ago
I think in general applications of technology can be -, but technology itself is neither good nor bad. It exists to be used for good and evil. · 2 years ago
It's a necessary evolutionary step towards Star Trek-like replicators. I may not live to see it, but I can envision a time when the appliance next to your dishwasher is a printer that works with multiple materials (ceramics, plastics, metal, circuitry) to print basic household items. · 2 years ago
@maria I've not printed any tests, but I've had plenty of failed and useless prints. 3D printing has helped me keep some things out of landfills, but I've no idea at what point things balance out. No idea how to quantify this.
If we were printing only with 100% post-consumer plastic, then it would be an easier call to make, but as it is... · 2 years ago
honestly printing is a wasteful hobby. you print 7 stringing tests just to print one cap.... at least if you do hobby printing like me · 2 years ago
@p13 Good point regarding resin machines. FDMs also have the advantage of being able, in theory, to use recycled waste plastic. (The dream for me is to start making useful things out of plastic that would have otherwise ended up in the waste stream.) The "cosplayers printing landfill material" bit gets at the core of my concern. By reducing costs and making plastic even more useful, it seems like consumer-level 3D printing may just end up driving more consumption of virgin plastic, making it a net environmental negative. It all depends on how the technology is *used,* but that's always true. There's a utopian path and a dystopian path; I worry we're on the latter. · 2 years ago
Thanks for your replies!
@mntn @tskaalgard Yes, it's a good technology for industrial design. This is commonly what I use my 3D printer for. Also replacement parts (as @maria notes) which helps keep things out of landfills for me. Not sure yet if that has outweighed the wasteful printing I've engaged in.
@sdfgeoff Yeah, my question came out of the feeling that user type #1 is far and away the most common. TBH, even types #2 and #3 might be considered net negatives if the reduced costs result in greater consumption of virgin plastic and energy expenditure overall, right? (I am type 3 myself.) · 2 years ago
there is an argument to be made about spare parts. if you need a cap for something it's arguably a lot cheaper to grab it on cults or thingiverse and print it compared to ordering it online. usually spare plastics come in more plastic bags, sometimes many of them. and they are shipped across the world, too · 2 years ago
Does it waste plastic? Sure. Over the past year I've used ~2kg. I've probably gone through about that much in discarded milk bottles too (~1 per week, ~50g of plastic = 2.6kg discarded bottles).
Also, don't dismiss the cosplayers too hard. At least they are making fantasy into reality (the core of all innovation).
Fun fact: 1kg of plastic costs the same locally as 2m of sewing fabric! · 2 years ago
I'm user type #3. Last weekend I built a wet-grindstone to sharpen knives I make from old steel. Took me an afternoon and some bits from my parts box. A few weeks back I printed a gearbox for an electric scooter I'm building.
Consider that up until 3d printers, people could not work with plastic in a home environment. Hardware stores sell tools for wood/metal, but the only option for plastic is a knife and glue.
3D printing let's you do some of the stuff you can do in a traditional garage - on the kitchen counter. It lets you make precise, strong parts without a milling machine or lathe. It lets you make complex parts without needing years of experience. · 2 years ago
<Disclaimer> I own one <Disclaimer>
It is no more or less wasteful than a guy having a welder in his shed, and spending his weekends building go-carts. Or a grandma buying reams of wool for knitting things that will shortly be too small, to scratchy etc.
There are several types of 3d printer users, only one of whom it can be argued as a waste:
1) The Thingiverse Browser. Browses thingiverse (etc.) for random junk and prints it for the lols.
2) The other hobbiest. Browses thingiverse (etc.) for things relating to his other hobbies (eg RC cars, wargaming), and prints ot those.
3) The maker. Designs his own models. Often found with a soldering iron close-by. Possibly built his own printer
4) The pro user. Uses it in industry.
A person often starts as #1/2 and works their way to #3/4 over a couple years. · 2 years ago
Depends on the kind of printer, i guess. FDM machines have limited real-world applications, but they are cheap, relatively easy to use and can make strong parts.
SLA machines produce much higher quality parts, but aren't nearly as easy to use or cheap. You need gloves, a good supply of IPA, a curing station, etc. And the resin is just nasty stuff. It's much harder to get strong parts from a consumer level SLA machine as well.
I think 3D printers are wonderful machines. They could solve a lot of problems.
The problem that i have with the 3D printing movement is that people mostly just make a bunch of trash with them, like the cosplayers printing landfil material. · 2 years ago
Well, I think there's a lot of potential there for 3D printing. It's great for DIY electronic housing and tons of other things like that. I'm sure that the fact that it sells plastic isn't ignored, but I don't think that's the central issue to it. Especially since 3D-printed items aren't generally supposed to be disposable. · 2 years ago
I think the value is oversold, but if you're doing rapid prototyping it's a godsend. I've used it a few times to build small custom enclosures and one of a kind parts. · 2 years ago