The Legacy of Infrastructure

So after all that meandering I end up here. I wrote about breakthroughs in fabrication technology and what it could mean for consumers of technology. One thing I had to acknowledge were the barriers to demand for this technology. Consumers adapt to the marketplace, the demand for goods and services is contingent. The world of possibility has limits, defined by the practical. Whatever we might want, we can only get what is available for the price we can afford. Change is incremental, it is rare for something to emerge that causes radical changes to consumption habits. It might seem odd to make the case that radical changes to a market happen only rarely, given that we live in a time where computers and networked communications develop so rapidly. I would argue this fact is exceptional in itself, in truth the change we experience near daily in the growth of web based services and product development and delivery is the product of advances made several decades ago. Remember the W3, still relies on a system of communications developed in the 60s, it has taken that long for it to become ubiquitous.
This is where the notion of the legacy of infrastructure becomes pertinent. There is an impetus, an inertia inherent in technology. When something new emerges with the ability to alter for the better pre-existing means of performing a task, the cost of immediately adopting it can be exorbitant, since not only must one factor in the cost of making the new technology available but also the cost of changing from one form of technology to another. Take electric vehicles as another example, right now the technology exist to build electric cars, bikes and trucks that in terms of cost and performance are becoming competitive with conventional fossil fuelled vehicles. The cost of manufacturing the vehicles is however a lot higher than the cost of the equivalent sized or powered fossil fuelled vehicle, again the cost of which is substantially lower due to the massive economies of scale enjoyed by their manufacturers. There are other costs too, the global infrastructure of oil fields, refineries, fuel retailers designed to efficiently distribute fuel to the consumer has taken the more than a century to evolve into the form it takes today. From a human perspective literally millions of people have spent their professional lives working in these industries, from C.E.Os to your humble car mechanic, all of whom it would appear will need to substantially re-educate themselves to deal with electric vehicles should they come to dominate the market. The question is will they? Ignoring the more conspiratorial opinions circulating about “Big Oil” even in the most optimistic and realistic assessments it will take several decades to create an infrastructure that will make electric vehicles compete on an even level with fossil fuel technology. Whether you like it or not, for the time being if you want to move fast and still consider yourself an ecologically responsible citizen, for the time being you are better off sticking to reliable second hand cars than buying the latest hybrid or electric vehicle. The time it takes for a discovery to emerge from the lab then to market then onward to whatever from of success it can hope to enjoy depends greatly upon its novelty. The point in time say when electricity was harnessed to the time it became practical to employ took several decades, probably longer (citation) however its rapid growth and adoption by people worldwide happened because of its novelty. Not only was it brand new but because of this nothing could stand in its to challenge it. A discovery of that magnitude happens rarely, so even after a century of the internal combustion engine, when technology can produce more efficient cleaner ways of moving heavy objects, the technology also has to offer enough to consumers to change from a mode of propulsion that has already had a century of optimisation and a huge global industry to support. For all the possible advantages of electric motors, there is a lot still to do before they can challenge fossil fuels as the primary means of moving vehicles.
To bring this back to that little machine I keep talking about that fabricate any number of devices in the home. Not only does it need to improve significantly to become truly successful it needs to compete against a long established impetus keeping things as they are now, which sees the typical consumer, folks like you and me I assume, from challenging that status quo. There are ways that this technology could have a significant impact and that is in developing economies. Take Africa for a quick example, a vast continent for sure and one that needs access to technology to grow economically and as a means to improve quality of life for its many peoples. In the past this project was undertaken on behalf of Africans by colonial (Western Nations) or neo-colonial (western corporation and NGOs) agencies, deciding what was needed by Africa with only limited consultation with actual Africans. This paternalistic relationship has dwindled somewhat since neo-liberal policies seem to allow for market forces to operate in Africa as they do in western economies. There is no better example of this that the growth of telecommunications in Africa. Given the vast size of Africa and the differences in infrastructure between any two regions a centralised telecoms system was never going to work. The old fashioned way of doing things, (from the perspective of western developed nations at least) cable based technology, was never practical in the context of African geography, instead today we are seeing an explosive increase in mobile telephony, a system far easier to implement than conventional land lines. The simple reason for this is that mobile telephony solves a lot of problems; it is easier to implement and since there is no competing technology it can spread rapidly and without competition. Looking at it this way ignores competition between rival telecoms corporations, individual carriers may die out but this is only to the benefit of the consumers in Africa since in the long run this competition only serves to lower the cost of the technology, thus ensuring long term success.
While 3d printing and similar technology may not be able to compete in economies where there is an established logistical network in place that can easily supply consumers with the commodities they demand, in areas where such an infrastructure is patchy at best perhaps 3d printing has something to offer. Rather than rely on delivery of expensive goods through a long delivery chain might it make more sense to receive blueprints for said goods and manufacture them on site? There could be several advantages to this: Complex objects no matter how well made are expensive to repair and if the machine in question requires spare parts that could take a long time to deliver and or require expertise from far a field to effect both of these factors serve to inhibit demand for this technology since the benefits become unreliable. However id simpler models could be developed, designed to be fabricated using cheap materials (possibly even adapted to take advantage of material available locally) then it becomes practical and worthwhile to possess those devices. In the event of breakage the expertise required to repair is available through a reliable and real time communications link and spare parts can be manufactured on site. As new and improved systems are developed existing machines can be upgraded or broken down to the constituent materials and a new model can be manufactured.
Not only would this system help developing economies but now that we live in an age where protecting the environment is paramount, it is a system where it is reasonable to expect that almost all goods manufactured this way are entirely recyclable.
Whether or not it will happen this way remains to be seen. It is one option out of many, and since it is such a novel approach competing with a substantial impetus that will in time create an effective system of logistics to support goods manufactured from central locations, then it may be as specialised in those regions as elsewhere. As I have said previously, among the factors mitigating against such a system is the requirement for a high level of expertise to use such a system effectively. In time, the technology may reach a stage where it becomes not only practical but advantageous to use systems like this it remains to be seen if there is sufficient demand for it anywhere in the world.




http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution