RepRap

From Brock University's Digital Humanities Compendium

Jump to: navigation, search

A review by Ryan Irwin, written for HIST 5V71 in Fall 2011

[edit] Review

The future is now! At least this is the impression one might get when exploring the RepRap (short for replicating rapid prototyper) project. There is enormous potential both seen and unseen when it comes to the RepRap project and the concepts surrounding it. The whole undertaking is extremely exciting both as a Digital Humanities project and for the potential implications it could have on society as a whole!

The RepRap project was thought up by Adrian Bowyer and stems from the concepts put forward by John von Neumann in the mid twentieth century. Neumann proposed the concept of a universal constructor. The universal constructor was a machine that could duplicate itself. This is essentially what RepRap does. Those involved in the RepRap project have created a 3D printer that is built with simplicity in mind. The RepRap is, for the most part, capable printing a copy of itself. With the parts printed from the original a second printer may be constructed on the cheap. The simplicity behind the design is important because it is the intention of the creators that this technology be spread openly among the general public. Due to the self replicating nature of the RepRap the machines have the potential to spread exponentially among the public.

When understanding the RepRap project it is important to look at some of the ideologies behind the project. The project has deep roots within Marxism, claiming that many of the problems in society outlined by Marxism are indeed real. The important factor to take away from Marxism with regards to the RepRap project is that people lack control over the means of production and therefore have a very hard time getting ahead. It is the people with resources that are able to acquire more resources. Those behind the project hope that the RepRap will provide a way for those of lesser means to control their own production.

A driving concept behind the RepRap project was adapted straight from nature. Using the example of insects and flowers Bowyer explains how nature has inspired the concept of symbiosis in the RepRap project. The plants (the printer) provide the insects (we, the people) with a meal, while the insects spread pollen allowing the plants to reproduce. Another interesting aspect of the RepRap borrowed from nature is that of evolution. A parent machine has the potential to create the components required for a more advanced daughter machine. Along with the machine, the necessary design documents and software will also be available through the internet. Due to the open nature of the project people will make their own machines and they will alter the designs. Over time the better designs will come to dominate. Already there have been 7 generations since the original Darwin RepRap was built in 2007 and there have been vast improvements to the RepRap in that time.

What does a project like RepRap mean for the humanities? How can we use it? Throughout our seminar discussions the issue of lost authenticity due to digitization has been a recurring theme. When things become digitized we interact with them on a different level. The RepRap has the potential to reverse that process. Although it can not fully overcome the sense of lost authenticity it can at least minimize the impact. With the RepRap the digital may now become tangible. Perhaps there are design specs and pictures of an historical artefact online. With a RepRap it is now possible to print a replica of the artefact in your own home. The humanist will now be able to incorporate more senses in their investigation. One may now interact with and view the historical material from a whole new perspective. This will perhaps generate new and important questions about the material. There is also the potential to use this technology to recreate certain aspects and scenarios from the past. For example as William J. Turkel notes historians of science may now readily recreate some of the experiments carried out in the past from their own homes.

It is hard to criticize an endeavour such as the RepRap project. The project was developed with all of society in mind. It was never intended for use by a limited segment of society and safeguards were put in place to prevent any one group holding a monopoly over the technology. It should be noted that the project has had some kinks in it throughout its development. Due to its open concept, the RepRap has and will continue to evolve at a rapid pace as both professionals and enthusiastic dabblers refine and tweak new generations. There are, however, a few potential criticisms that might be levelled against the RepRap. One is that if the printers do become widespread, as is the goal, there will be a massive number of people generating plastic trinkets and baubles. With the ease of access to cheap products it will be easy to create replacements for small things, such as clasps, combs and buckles. In time the quality of these product may degrade. When these aspects combine excess waste is a potential by product of the RepRap. Another criticism comes from those who have a more ‘luddite’ outlook on technology and society. They would argue that the proliferation of what is essentially a home factory will cut down on the need for real manufacturing and thus people will lose their jobs. While this does not seem at all likely considering the restrictions of the RepRap as a home printer it is nevertheless a legitimate worry. We do not know what impact this technology might have on society in the years to come.

A word must now be said on the first criticism. Although the current material used to print items is plastic this might not be the case for long. Bowyer accounted for this when designing the RepRap and has thought up a potential alternative that could be used instead of plastic. In fact, “in the future, Bowyer is hoping to be able to use a polymer called polylactic acid, which can be made by fermentation from starch using potatoes or maize.” This would mean that any products made with the RepRap would be biodegradable. It also means that now we will not only have the means to manufacture our own products but we will also be able to grow the raw materials to do so. This closed system of extraction and production places the means back into the workers hands. This closed system might even create better conditions for the environment. Currently it makes sense to manufacture products in factories, transport the products to stores and then again to people’s homes. With people making products in their own homes the transportation costs and associated pollution might be greatly reduced.

The RepRap project has broad implications for society. Not all of which we can see yet. However, it would not be at all inappropriate to get excited about this project and what it means for, not only us as humanists, but for society as a whole. The project was designed with the everyman in mind and seeks to cure the ailments of society outlined by Marx. What is better is that it aims to do so without a revolution. As Bowyer himself has said of the project it is at its heart Darwinian Marxism. While there were kinks and limitations seen in the first RepRap the open accessible nature of the project allows for many people worldwide to work on refining the project and it has already come a considerable way since the first model in 2007. This project is truly exciting because it has such a broad appeal to so many people and because it is readily available to anyone who wishes to make use of it.

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share