As early as 2007, futurists were already prophesying about how 3D-printers would be the next big thing, and how the world was only months away from widespread deployment. Soon, we were told, we would be trading files for printable trinkets over email as frequently as we then did recipes and photographs. Replacing broken or lost household implements would be as simple as a few taps on a smartphone and a brief wait. It is ten years later, and the results are mixed.
The idea of fabricating things out of plastics for home use is not new. The Disney home of the future featured custom home fabrication heavily, relying on the power of plastics. This was in 1957*. Still, the truly revolutionary part of technological advancement has never been the limited operation of niche appliances, but the shift that occurs after a given technology becomes widely available. After all, video conferencing in the loosest sense has been used by military, government, and limited commercial services since as early as World War II, yet was still considered suitably futuristic in media up until the early years of the new millennium.
So, how has 3D-printing fared as far as mass accessibility is concerned? The surface answer seems to be: not well. After all, most homes, my own included, do not have 3D printers in them. 3D-printed houses and construction materials, although present around the world, have not shaken up the industry and ended housing shortages; though admittedly these were ambitious visions to begin with. The vast majority of manufacturing is still done in faraway factories rather than in the home itself.
On the other hand, perhaps we’re measuring to the wrong standard. After all, even in the developed world, not everyone has a “regular” printer. Not everyone has to. Even when paper documents were the norm rather than online copies, printers were not universal for every household. Many still used communal library or school facilities, or else used commercial services. The point, as far as technological progress is concerned, is not to hit an arbitrary number, or even percentage of homes with 3D printers in them, but to see that a critical mass of people have access to the products of 3D printing.
Taking this approach, let’s go back to using my own home as an example. Do I have access to the products of 3D printing? Yes, I own a handful of items made by 3D printers. If I had an idea or a need for something, could I gain access to a 3D printer? Yes, both our local library, and our local high school have 3D printers available for public use (at cost of materials). Finally, could I, if I were so disposed, acquire a 3D printer to call my own? Slightly harder to answer, given the varying quality and cost, but the general answer is yes, beginner 3D printers can now be purchased alongside other hardware at office supply stores.
What, then, have been the results of this quiet revolution? One’s answer will probably vary wildly depending on where one works and what one reads, but from where I stand, the answer as been surprisingly little. The trend in omnipresent availability and endless customizability for items ordered on the internet has intensified, and the number of people I know who make income by selling handicrafts has increased substantially, but these are hardly effects of 3D printing so much as the general effects of the internet era. 3D printing has enabled me to acquire hard protective cases for my medical equipment. In commercial matters, it would seem that 3D printing has become a buzzword, much like “sustainable” and “organic”.
Regarding the measuring of expectations for 3D printing, I am inclined to believe that the technology has been somewhat undermined by the name it got. 3D printers are not nearly as ubiquitous as printers still are, let alone in their heyday, and I do not expect they will become so, at least not in the foreseeable future. Tying them to the idea of printing, while accurate in a technical sense, limits thinking and chains our expectations.
3D printers are not so much the modern equivalent to paper printers so much as the modern equivalents of fax machines. Schools, libraries, and (certain) offices will likely continue to acquire 3D printers for the community, and certain professionals will have 3D printers, but home 3D printing will be the exception rather than the rule.
The appearance of 3D printing provides an interesting modern case study for technologies that catch the public imagination before being fully developed. Like the atomic future of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a vision of a glorious utopian future which would be made possible in our lifetimes by a technology already being deployed. Both are still around, and do provide very useful services, but neither fully upended life as we know it and brought about the revolutionary change we expected, or at least, hoped for.
Despite my skepticism, I too hope, and honestly believe, that the inexorable march of technology will bring about a better tomorrow. That is, after all, the general trend of humanity over the last 10,000 years. The progress of technology is not the sudden and shiny prototypes, but the widespread accessibility of last year’s innovations. 3D printing will not singlehandedly change the world, nor will whatever comes after it. With luck, however, it may give us the tools and the ways of thinking to do it ourselves.
* I vaguely recall having seen ideas at Disney exhibits for more specific 3D-printing for dishes and tableware. However, despite searching, I can’t find an actual source. Even so, the idea of customized printing is definitely present in Monsanto’s House of the Future sales pitch, even if it isn’t developed to where we think of 3D-printing today.
