A great physicist Michio Kaku wrote a book awhile ago about possible implementations of physics in future technology.
He divided the technology possibilities to become available in a) next 100 years, b) next 1000 years, c) next 10,000 years or d) never - across potential technologies like invisibility, anti-gravity, warp speed etc.
All these technologies should be considered conceptual technologies, although he has admitted that some of the next 100 years possibilities could become reality as fast as in the next couple of decades and some are actually already being "tested" (in a very conceptual way).
Here in NZ one of our more technology savvy ministers raved about dangers of 3D printing - specifically around public being able to print out drugs like Ecstacy from their homes. Of course what the minister was talking about was the recent TED talk on "chemputers" - a conceptual device that could print out common (simple formula) medicins (not complex drugs like Ecstasy).
The problem with the ministers comments was that he thought this technology would become viable in near future. So this got me thinking on when a technology is conceptual and when it is near future.
My thoughts on why "chemputers" are not a near future technology: They have not been proto-typed properly yet - all the scientists have managed to do is to write some molecules of the chemicals that make a medicine side by side on a strip paper.
No merging of these components together to create real substance yet, no stress testing whether it is time-wise viable to do this, no calculations on what the 20 odd chemicals needed to create most common medicines would cost and certainly no cost estimates what mass producing this kind of device would cost (or whether it is even possible to mass produce this). And certainly no work on legal ramifications yet. So to me this is most definitively a conceptual device and one that is quite likely not to happen at all or maybe only to be built for closely controlled lab environments.
I think if we should be concerned about 3D printers (which I think are cool, but will I believe remain as a specialist gimmick industry), we might be better off looking at devices that these printers can print - something like lightweight crossbows for example (as I cannot see how a gun would really work with the plastic substance these printers use) as these things could really harm people. On the other hand a lot of these similar quality toys/"weapons" you can buy from the 2-dollar shop anyways, so should we really worry about this at all. just let the technology improve and run it's course.
But hey, maybe in near future you could use a 3D printer to print yourself a "chemputer", which you can then use to print your drugs - heh, how far do you want to go with this ...
He divided the technology possibilities to become available in a) next 100 years, b) next 1000 years, c) next 10,000 years or d) never - across potential technologies like invisibility, anti-gravity, warp speed etc.
All these technologies should be considered conceptual technologies, although he has admitted that some of the next 100 years possibilities could become reality as fast as in the next couple of decades and some are actually already being "tested" (in a very conceptual way).
Here in NZ one of our more technology savvy ministers raved about dangers of 3D printing - specifically around public being able to print out drugs like Ecstacy from their homes. Of course what the minister was talking about was the recent TED talk on "chemputers" - a conceptual device that could print out common (simple formula) medicins (not complex drugs like Ecstasy).
The problem with the ministers comments was that he thought this technology would become viable in near future. So this got me thinking on when a technology is conceptual and when it is near future.
My thoughts on why "chemputers" are not a near future technology: They have not been proto-typed properly yet - all the scientists have managed to do is to write some molecules of the chemicals that make a medicine side by side on a strip paper.
No merging of these components together to create real substance yet, no stress testing whether it is time-wise viable to do this, no calculations on what the 20 odd chemicals needed to create most common medicines would cost and certainly no cost estimates what mass producing this kind of device would cost (or whether it is even possible to mass produce this). And certainly no work on legal ramifications yet. So to me this is most definitively a conceptual device and one that is quite likely not to happen at all or maybe only to be built for closely controlled lab environments.
I think if we should be concerned about 3D printers (which I think are cool, but will I believe remain as a specialist gimmick industry), we might be better off looking at devices that these printers can print - something like lightweight crossbows for example (as I cannot see how a gun would really work with the plastic substance these printers use) as these things could really harm people. On the other hand a lot of these similar quality toys/"weapons" you can buy from the 2-dollar shop anyways, so should we really worry about this at all. just let the technology improve and run it's course.
But hey, maybe in near future you could use a 3D printer to print yourself a "chemputer", which you can then use to print your drugs - heh, how far do you want to go with this ...