Will Corporate Capitalism be Fading Out?

Now before we get all political, let me make a few points: capitalism has done some pretty good things. It's gotten us where we are today, roughly, but it has developed mankind at a huge rate since the Industrial Revolution. The corporation model has provided vast amounts of resources so that aspiring academics could develop many of the great technologies we have today, either by hiring scientists, engineers, developers, etc; or by creating the economic basis by which our government was able to support such research, take NASA for example.

However, capitalism has its dark sides as well. As an entity that focuses more on profit than progress, the development it has created has also been hindered by the same model as competition stifles cooperation amongst researchers. Also, the profiteering model is a very clear breeding grounds for corruption, and companies will go to great lengths to protect their markets from revolutionary designs that will be more ethical but challenge their positions at the top. A particularly gruesome example of this is when some major medical company attempted, and thankfully failed, to copyright strings of human DNA that could be used for research to fight disease.

So capitalism has some good, mainly in that we needed it to get this far, past tense. But the playing field is changing now. We live in a world where kids can build nuclear reactors in their garages, and the dissemination of technology and information is only increasing exponentially. We live currently on the brink of 3D printing technology, which in the next decade might be so accurate as to reach the molecular level. That's the technology I want to talk about today.

There are a few methods of molecular level 3D printing in the works today. Photografting is one, which uses lasers that carve away at a hydrogel. Another, molecular manufacturing, is talked about quite nicely in Mark Stevenson's book, an Optimist's Tour of the Future, which I discussed in my previous blog post. One engineer by the name of Kim Eric Drexler predicts we will one day, very soon, have desktop sized printers with the ability to print objects on this scale. The feedstock used would be unfathomably cheap, he predicts, and the technology (which could reproduce itself) will lead not just to the end of industrial manufacturing, but to capitalism in general. (More information on Drexler's theories can be found in his book, Engines of Creation, which I haven't read quite yet, but I figured I'd mention it.)

What that means and how it works and what that would lead to and what it would need for humanity to survive are all important key factors. Firstly, I'll say that it won't be some crazy dystopian apocalypse that ruins mankind nor leads to our destruction. We existed far before capitalism, and we will continue to exist after it. What I believe to be unavoidable as this technology develops and improves is that eventually it will become commonplace, as Drexler describes, and it will change things, and we'd better figure out how to compensate. At the rate technology develops, it will only be a matter of time before we don't even need to purchase feedstock, but we'll be able to poor in sand or dirt or any matter in general. Technically, nothing in physics prevent us from converting the energy we supply it with directly into matter. Of course this will take a lot of effort to design such a device, but I doubt it'll take so much time. Somebody, eventually, will do it. And of the people that figure it out, someone will share it with the world.

In fact, one company is already starting up to make this all a reality, minus the energy to matter conversion bit. With the ability to manipulate atoms as you see fit, and with accuracy, you can make anything at home. People upload designs to the internet, many of them will most likely be free, and next thing you know you're printing your food, solar panels to power your home, your own antennae for internet connections, bigger (or pragmatically, smaller) and better computers to act as your own servers. Textbooks, CDs, instruments, games, clothes, medicine, weapons, money. Every industry would become irrelevant, because finally people's creativity would no longer be hindered by high start-up costs or corporate corruption. We'd all be out of a job, which means quite a few things. Hopefully by this point we've advanced 3D molecular printing beyond the need for feedstock and any ol' matter will do, at least something that can be narrowed down to a few basic and widely available molecules.

How would the fall of corporations affect security? Would people go nuts and start raiding each other? Possibly, depending on the state of security at the time, which depends a lot on the reputation of the government. Without monetary motive, since people could get any material thing they want anyway, any military will have to be comprised of members who actually believe in the security of the people and are willing to sacrifice their well being to achieve that. With population on the rise, there should in theory be enough individuals of such a mindset, and already our technological advancements have lead to a much smaller yet more effective military, at least in America, to make an adequate security force feasible.

But more importantly, to make this work, a change in culture would be needed. Already the world is becoming more tolerant, but there remains a lot of hyper-conservatives (or fundamentalists, if you prefer) who refuse to accept other people's lifestyles. If the trend continues, though, eventually a standard code of ethics will emerge, at least one that will prevent us from hurting, maiming, torturing, or killing each other for long enough to figure out all the details. Plus, thankfully, people tend to be a lot happier when they're not suffering from hunger or money problems.

I've mentioned money now a few times. When I do so in reference to 3D printing, I don't mean to say, “oh everyone can print all the money they need and buy whatever they want now!” Sadly economics is a bit more complicated. What I do mean is that when you can convert matter into any material possession you desire, money kind of becomes irrelevant.

Let's look back up at the security model I briefly mentioned, where the organization will be compiled of people who actually want to do their job. That's an astounding model. Imagine if people only worked in jobs they wanted. However, that leaves a lot of gaps. Sure, some people are attracted to the simplistic lifestyle of say, janitorial work, and that's great. But would it be enough people to provide for a large, growing population? Probably not. But why not? Why don't people on a wide scale love sanitation services like thousands of people love engineering or doctoring? I'll dare to predict, it's because there's not a lot of mental stimulation. Not to say there aren't many a great thing to learn about the job, I'd probably suck at taking out everyone's trash due to lack of knowledge alone, but it's nothing on the scale of astrophysics or, pardon the cliché, rocket science. People like to apply the knowledge we have, in changing environments, not all people, but most find repetition daunting, whereas others find comfort in it. That's a problem with society is that we demand more repetitious jobs than we do mentally stimulating ones. It's inaccurate with the ratio of people who would prefer, and thus excel at, those types of jobs.

Remember, 3D printing won't be the only technology advancing at once. Robotics is a crazy fast paced field of study right now. It won't be long before robots can move and function in other jobs like they do now in car manufacturing. I'll make another prediction: that very soon robots will be able to supplement labor for tasks that aren't as mentally challenging, simply because what makes those tasks not mentally challenging is what defines them as simple enough for robots to quickly be programmed take over.

This again will free people to do anything they want. Once things like food, housing, welfare, and education are all provided, we can again bring meaning back to arts, philosophies, science for the sake of science, not for the sake of what can you sell out to the biggest companies. We can have another golden age, except unlike that of ancient Greece, ours won't be built on an economy built on slave labor. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no historian.)

Once more, I want to bring up that security model, mainly for one reason. No matter how much we as humanity develop our universal code of ethics, there will be people who think differently. And that's a good thing, diversity is the seed that grows into a free and productive society, it's essential so that we can support the ethics we discover. What becomes a problem is when people take matters to extremes, when they believe their ideology is worth more than the life of another human being. When a human resorts to terrorism, or otherwise causes mayhem or suffering to spur a cause, that's the line that shouldn't be crossed. And in a world free to discuss the philosophies of mankind, it's, initially, inevitable that terror groups will form. This is where the necessity for an adequate security force is needed. (Not to mention things like disaster relief, fire protection, medical aid, etc; you know, all of today's real heroes.) How different will the model be?

Will government still exist? If economy as a model for society falters, will there be enough people willing to work in government, let alone will people be able to vote them in. Once we don't have mainstream media to pick our candidates for us, and again hopefully by this point people will have the time to actually research politicians, and analyze them without bias, and we have a standard of ethics and the means to produce the things we need to reduce a lot of the political cannon fodder our government distracts itself with today, will we even need government? Or will people just make things happen, having been freed from the restrictions of a dominant labor system? This opens up an eerily rustic can of worms labeled anarchy!

A can of worms I'm going to put a lid on for now. I don't like the sound of it, nor do I wish to advocate it, but it might be a model we end up following. What I really wish for is that our government changes form, drive, substance, and flexibility to adapt to the world that's coming soon to a planet near you. Maybe less the model of old men arguing over things that either don't matter or should be obvious, and more of a large group of people striving towards a common goal in a productive and progressive manner. Maybe we won't need to elect our officials, but we will choose them, in that the people who make the most sense or do better things are generally listened to more, and can actually lead more people into doing the right thing, instead of coercing the masses through media and monetary manipulation.

Thank you.

As always, my board is open fully for discussion. I don't claim to be right about everything I say, so if you disagree I want to hear why. Or if you enjoyed reading, I'd like to hear that too. To all my readers, many thanks, and I hope to entertain you again soon.