When I was told about 3D printing, a 'street name' of molecular manufacturing, by my father a year ago, I literally took it as a joke. I remember I spent nearly half an hour, using all the thing that I have learnt in high school chemistry class, persuading him that it was just an ideal way of manufacturing. I told him that even it somehow become possible in the future, it would still be too costly compared to traditional factories in China.
Today, the drastically development of molecular manufacturing is proving me wrong. Even though the fictional 3D printing still have not yet realized, the widespread use of nanotechnology in medicine, biology and energy is making the day closer and closer. Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies. If all these theories work, exponentially soaring molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable.
"The possible implications ... are impossible to estimate, but it is at least conceivable that Chinese factories - and hence the employment of a hundred million or more - could be negatively impacted" In The Future of Technological Civilization, Prof. Woodhouse expresses his concern on molecular manufacturing negatively effect job opportunity available, economically known as 'structural unemployment'.
However, I see the potential risk of inequity initiated by molecular manufacturing more influential then merely revolutionizing sweatshop labor. When you purchase a pair of sneakers on Amazon, you are paying for its design, raw materials, the labor and capital of manufacturing, transportation, storage, and sales. Fairly small amount of money goes to the owners of all these businesses. If personal nanofactories can produce a wide variety of products when and where they are wanted, most of this effort will become unnecessary. This raises several questions about the post-nanotechnological economy: Will capitalism disappear? Will people be unemployed? Will the availability of 3D copying mean that even the designers and copyright owners don't get paid?And if nanofactory technology is exclusively owned or controlled, will this create the world's biggest monopoly, with abusive anti-competitive practices?
Inequity happens not only when job opportunity in not equally available, but also when the market equilibrium is broken, which may lead to unfair distribution of accessibility of goods and services. Owners of nanotechnology may charge high rates for all products, and make high profits. Such a practice would deny cheap lifesaving technologies such as water filters or mosquito netting to millions of people in desperate need. The benefit and convenience of the new technology may not be converted to the poor; rather, stays as a tool for capitalists to gain more profit.
How can scientists, businesses, and government work together to ensure positive impact of nanotechnology? This will be an important study to get the world ready for a brave new era, involving new governmental regulations, new marketing strategies, new direction in education.
No comments:
Post a Comment