I don’t think the 3d printers out there are a significant producer of plastic waste in the grand scheme of things. They can actually prevent a lot of waste by making replacement parts or fixing something to meet a new use case.
But the narrative that they were going to revolutionize everything comes out of this idea that things are generally improved by the production of more stuff, more niche gizmos and doodads. It is a facet of the thinking behind over consumption.
Often that kind of thinking even gets in the way of implementing solutions to real problems. Much easier to sell people on an ineffective solution based in more stuff than a solution that requires them to alter their life style or accept a little inconvenience.
3d printers are just tools, but the idea that new tools are all that is needed to solve issues is a huge problem.
Most of the guys I know who have 3d printers are so eager to have someone ask them to make a specific thing for them on the 3d printer, and it’s always really practical makes.
That’s me. Sort of. Don’t get me wrong, my wife is rapidly running out of room in her office for all the cute animals I have printed for her (that she didn’t ask for, I just surprise her with them sometimes 😅).
But I’ve rapidly reached the stage where I want to print but have covered most of my own needs for printed stuff. So any time anyone asks if I can print something, I’m thrilled.
I mean, making cute animals is part of most hobbies. I have created more little animals with crochet than I can count, and I don’t necessarily see 3d printing as anymore wasteful than crochet
Yeah I’ve done a couple prints for friends or relatives. My most recent print is a simple miny peg-chess set so I can learn from my chess books with a physical board and pieces.
Not exactly practical, but still useful.
I’ve successfully solved several real life problems with my printer, and it’s always nice to find something practical to make or fix.
So that’s a fun story. The light squares and pieces are all printed from the same color changing filament.
I printed all the squares first, after putting them in, I realized I was missing one. And I was already printing the pieces. After removing several of the squares from the board in preparation for replacing them, I found the one I thought I lost (or didn’t print). Sadly removing the squares ruined several of them. So I was locked into replacing with newly printed squares. And because it’s color changing filament, they’re different from the second print.
Anywho. Long, boring, (turns out not fun at all) story. But I thought it looked pretty cool in the end.
this idea that things are generally improved by the production of more stuff, more niche gizmos and doodads. It is a facet of the thinking behind over consumption.
Yeah like look at all the consumer tech we have now, and are we any happier? There’s a cruel optimism to chasing these gewgaws.
There’s that, and also looking at “technology” (in the general sense) as this messianic thing that will eventually save us all if we just keep accelerating and inventing things and crashing forward into the future — we’ll eventually tumble into the beautiful green glade at the end of history where nothing hurts and all is harmonious — all without ever having to do any messy introspection or trying to solve our problems with what we have right now.
Anyway it’s foolish. But I blame the owners more than the consumers.
It’s tools and behavior that will produce change. If we have the tools but fail to change consumer behavior, overall change will be negligible.
If I use a 3d printer to print all the replacement parts I would have had to order specially otherwise, I am benefitting from the tool. But if those facilities keep making the parts I used to order, and the market overall focuses on ordering rather than making, not much environmental benefit is made from me not having things shipped to my door.
That doesn’t condemn the tool or the market, but the problem is this technology can’t have greater impact unless it changes consumer behavior at a critical mass, rather than just hobbyists.
I don’t think the 3d printers out there are a significant producer of plastic waste in the grand scheme of things. They can actually prevent a lot of waste by making replacement parts or fixing something to meet a new use case.
But the narrative that they were going to revolutionize everything comes out of this idea that things are generally improved by the production of more stuff, more niche gizmos and doodads. It is a facet of the thinking behind over consumption.
Often that kind of thinking even gets in the way of implementing solutions to real problems. Much easier to sell people on an ineffective solution based in more stuff than a solution that requires them to alter their life style or accept a little inconvenience.
3d printers are just tools, but the idea that new tools are all that is needed to solve issues is a huge problem.
Most of the guys I know who have 3d printers are so eager to have someone ask them to make a specific thing for them on the 3d printer, and it’s always really practical makes.
That’s me. Sort of. Don’t get me wrong, my wife is rapidly running out of room in her office for all the cute animals I have printed for her (that she didn’t ask for, I just surprise her with them sometimes 😅).
But I’ve rapidly reached the stage where I want to print but have covered most of my own needs for printed stuff. So any time anyone asks if I can print something, I’m thrilled.
I mean, making cute animals is part of most hobbies. I have created more little animals with crochet than I can count, and I don’t necessarily see 3d printing as anymore wasteful than crochet
Yeah I’ve done a couple prints for friends or relatives. My most recent print is a simple miny peg-chess set so I can learn from my chess books with a physical board and pieces.
Not exactly practical, but still useful.
I’ve successfully solved several real life problems with my printer, and it’s always nice to find something practical to make or fix.
Is there a reason the board is 3 colours?
So that’s a fun story. The light squares and pieces are all printed from the same color changing filament.
I printed all the squares first, after putting them in, I realized I was missing one. And I was already printing the pieces. After removing several of the squares from the board in preparation for replacing them, I found the one I thought I lost (or didn’t print). Sadly removing the squares ruined several of them. So I was locked into replacing with newly printed squares. And because it’s color changing filament, they’re different from the second print.
Anywho. Long, boring, (turns out not fun at all) story. But I thought it looked pretty cool in the end.
For 3D chess?
IDK, but it certainly looks aesthetically pleasing, to me at least.
Yeah like look at all the consumer tech we have now, and are we any happier? There’s a cruel optimism to chasing these gewgaws.
There’s that, and also looking at “technology” (in the general sense) as this messianic thing that will eventually save us all if we just keep accelerating and inventing things and crashing forward into the future — we’ll eventually tumble into the beautiful green glade at the end of history where nothing hurts and all is harmonious — all without ever having to do any messy introspection or trying to solve our problems with what we have right now.
Anyway it’s foolish. But I blame the owners more than the consumers.
It’s tools and behavior that will produce change. If we have the tools but fail to change consumer behavior, overall change will be negligible.
If I use a 3d printer to print all the replacement parts I would have had to order specially otherwise, I am benefitting from the tool. But if those facilities keep making the parts I used to order, and the market overall focuses on ordering rather than making, not much environmental benefit is made from me not having things shipped to my door.
That doesn’t condemn the tool or the market, but the problem is this technology can’t have greater impact unless it changes consumer behavior at a critical mass, rather than just hobbyists.