Expanding beyond 3D printed guns
March 13, 2013
3D printed gun (credit: DEFCAD)
At a panel discussion at SXSW Monday, Defense Distributed (DEFCAD) founder Cody Wilson unveiled that DEFCAD is working on plans to expand its efforts beyond just firearms to any controversial object users feel like uploading, including grenades and patented ones, VentureBeat reports.
Cody:
Can 3D printing be subversive? If it can, it will be because it allows us to make the important things — not trinkets, not lawn gnomes, but the things that institutions and industries have an interest in keeping from us. Things like access, medical devices, drugs, goods, guns. DEFCAD will provide access with a view to these things, the important things, and there will be no takedowns — ever.
Comments (81)
by Bri
The latest on the New Town shooting is that he was obsessed with video games and that they are to blame. If that’s the case then we are in big trouble. The top violent video game, Call to Duty, grossed one billion dollars in two weeks. That line of reasoning would imply that a large percentage of those game players are planning to score points in the real world. So which is worse the video game? Ultimate corrupter. Or the people who play? Morally bankrupt? The causes of these violent acts and the desires to play violent games is far more suptle and deep rooted than what people deem to be the right way to deal with them. All I see is very simplistic understandings and reasonings. Ban assault rifles and violent video games and the root causes will remain. Maybe he will vent them with a genetically altered Ebola virus instead.
by Dennis R.
“Call of duty” may have been played by the Newtown shooter, but it’s also played by lots of young people. Including many who wind up joining the military– not that that rules out sociopathy. It’s part of a broader socialization process that inculcates competition in many aspects of society. Remember, in a culture which is facing an obesity “epidemic,” we have competitive eating contests which are considered newsworthy. And we also have prime-time television shows in which contestants compete to see who can lose the most weight.
Perhaps our least understood social pathology is our obsession to be famous. Mass murderers have their moments of fame, don’t they?
by Bri
I like your assessment. Particularly the fame aspect and the socially acceptable roles. Where as most people think of the video games as the prime causes of these behaviors, I see them as a symptom of the underlining causes. They have to do with ego development and certain mammalian social developments. These behaviors are rooted in needs. Needs of the individual and needs of society. Yes there are tremendous polar opposites in society. We all have our view of our place. These actions are a lashings out against perceived injustices. If we all were mote perceptive of our impacts and influences on other people we could end this problem in an instant. That’s a tall order though. The problem is insidious. I’ve refered to it before. Mishio Kaku refers to it when he says that we are all born Einsteins and that problems in society inhibit that flowering. That’s a huge throttling back. We can only get faint blinded of the ridicule that these shooters endured to make them need to seek that level of revenge.
by Peter
i’m not concerned with the printing of guns, i’m more concerned with the medical aspects of 3d printing, like organs and such.
by Dennis R.
I don’t think they’d “print” organs with these devices. Possibly a framework on which living tissues (stem cells) could grow given the correct instructions? But using 3-D printers to manufacture inorganic components, (hip joints, pacemakers, defibrillators, etc.) to extend or enhance life? I’d have no problem with that.
by hal
Maybe this post can be made into a a book or movie like Game of Thrones or Hunger Games.
The illegal drug trade has become so successful it likely has ivy league accountants and strategists.
The real issue is as the curve of information moves from micro to macro the one time act moves from Sandyhook or Unibomber to ultimate demise. So unless the future has a Ray Kurzweil Ramona group pulling the levers and switches there will be a Sword of Damocles hanging over life on earth. So how is this avoided? Perhaps a Gattica type patch on the arm at birth that insures we are all good little kittens.
by Gabriel
Just because you feel right now that leaders are benevolent and have your best interests at hand, does not mean that will be true forever.
I never said any such thing Locke.
I am sorry if this seems cold to you, I personally wept for a week after the tragedy in Newtown, but I did not allow myself to let these very strong emotions override my rational faculties, because they are constantly at odds in the human psyche.
Well, you’d be right to think that way. When it comes to the gun control issue however, my words don’t necessarily stem solely from the shock and horror everytime an incident happens…but from the confusion of why there cannot be the most basic common-sense measures taken to bring the numbers down. As before, the solution doesn’t have to be an arbitrary broad-relinquishment, which is exactly what gun advocates keep shouting about everytime they hear about gun control (and what the gun control issue is rooted in: forget hollywood, the second amendment which refers to a well-regulated militia in a time when only muskets were around, violent video games….all these things are just rhetoric made to dance around the real reason)….. such relinquishment impossible at this stage, which makes such an arbitrary fear ridiculous: more importantly, it doesn’t explain, or excuse, why nothing should be done whatsoever…and why, even the most basic steps to decreasing the rates of gun violence in this country, cannot be done. It’s why I get frustrated everytime an incident does happen….because it feels like, to a degree, all the emotion and sympathy is false – everyone cries their crocodile tears, but nothing is done whatsoever to actually change things, so what happens? Nothing…just move onto the next gun incident, ad infinitum. When, on a subconscious level, society has seemingly accepted such atrocities as acceptable in exchange for the arbitrary right to wield a small armory, with firepower far beyond what the founding fathers could have ever imagined, and with zero desire to do anything whatsoever to pull the numbers down, I can’t help but get mad.
The whole of my post Locke was about the idea of relinquishment, both broadly and fine-grained: as before, I’d like to think that we, as a people, would be willing to give up a personal liberty, no matter how tempting or otherwise empowered we may be, if it simply wasn’t worth the trouble it was doing to society as a whole….it doesn’t always have to be a broad relinquishment, especially if, like with firearms, such a thing is no longer practical…the answer can simply be in taking measures to minimize the potential for misuse, whilst enabling people to maintain their liberties. It doesn’t have to always be an “all or nothing”, and so much bad happens because some people can’t see things any other way. Things may never be perfect, nor are we looking or can expect perfect solutions, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do something to bring the violence numbers down and makes things better and safer for everyone, whether it refer to gun violence or anything else.
Alas, perhaps that’s just the idealist in me speaking. Undoubtedly on some level, their is emotion coloring my words and perception, just like those on the other side of this debate: I’m happy to think, if nothing else, that you feel my heart is in the right place, which undoubtedly speaks for all of us. It may be that, on some level, as much as I care about the individual liberties of the people, I also care just as much about the whole of society, and in this case, it has my focus more….It doesn’t have to be one or the other — we can have Liberty and Security at the same time, which is why I don’t understand why some people feel we’ve traded the former for the latter: We can still maintain our rights of privacy and liberty as individuals, but we must also allow the government to do what is right for us in order to safeguard us.
Dropping the anarchist wild-west fantasy of pretending to be like comic-book superheroes, watching the Watchman, and preventing the rise of imaginary Hitlers doesn’t mean opening the doors to totalitarian tyranny….It simply means getting away from the arbitrary and absolute, and trying to adopt a fairer, realistic and objective way of looking at things…and, on the part of we the people, I’d like to think we’d be willing to amend and let go of our individual liberties to a degree if, in the long run, it meant being safer and happier no matter how empowered or tempting it may as otherwise be. As you said though, perhaps my heart is talking louder than my head.
Oh well, you say tomato, I say to-ma-to.
by Locke
I appreciate that you took the time to reply to me. Civil discourse is a lost art in this world.
Like you, I certainly have no problem with common sense regulations which would definitely have an impact on death and violence in general. However I am very skeptical of the political motives for currently proposed legislation, and I simply cannot see how any of that legislation would have an impact on crime or tragedies such as those we have seen. I do not believe in legislating just to “do something”, taking away people’s freedoms without any real evidence that it will work (and actually some which prove the opposite).
Let us examine some of them:
Banning certain weapons or accessories, which are statistically very unlikely to be used in any crime solely based on cosmetics. This is the essence of the ban being proposed. Rifles as a category of firearms are used to kill less than 350 people in this country every year, these so-called “assault weapons” are a subset of this. With about 10,000 gun related deaths in this country every year, I fail to see the significance of the type of gun used and why the sole focus is on these types of weapons. It is not that they are even specifically deadly, most shoot a much smaller bullet than most common handguns.
A ban such as this was already in effect for 10 years, and the Department of Justice determined that it had no effect on crime. Since then this type of rifle has become much more popular, yet murders by rifle (or any firearm actually) have gone down significantly.
Banning magazines over a certain size. This is another possibility on the table and again I fail to see how this will possibly make us safer or have any impact on crime, especially the type of mass murder most people are concerned about. Considering bringing three 10 round magazines vs. one 30 round magazine full of bullets into a building where the murderer is guaranteed his victims are completely defenseless is an academic exercise at best. Swapping out a magazine takes 1-2 seconds, when no-one is opposing the murderer, how does this make any difference? The only time it will make a difference is to someone who is on the defense and scared against an armed opponent in the dark of night.
Universal background checks. This does have some merit at least for the peace of mind of the seller, but only the dumbest of criminals would attempt to pass a background check and only the dumbest of law-abiding people would sell their firearm to a stranger without some form of reassurance. However, the way this is currently proposed lays down the foundation for registration and the ability to hold a seller criminally liable for the misuse of the firearm he sold in good faith.
I do not see any of the above as “common sense”, and unfortunately the things which are common sense, such as removing gun-free zones, providing armed guards in high risk areas, prosecuting criminals better, providing real help to the mentally ill, etc. are just not being talked about.
“Doing something” only works if you are doing the right thing. And I think that there is too much emotion and too little fact in the current debate. It makes me wonder what the real motivation is.
by Gabriel
I do not see any of the above as “common sense”, and unfortunately the things which are common sense, such as removing gun-free zones, providing armed guards in high risk areas, prosecuting criminals better, providing real help to the mentally ill, etc. are just not being talked about.
“Doing something” only works if you are doing the right thing. And I think that there is too much emotion and too little fact in the current debate. It makes me wonder what the real motivation is.
Sorry for the wait Locke, I didn’t realize you had responded :).
As for the current legislation, I can understand the feeling that there is too much emotion and not enough fact….that, on one side, you have those with good intentions who are trying to bring numbers down but cannot find practical solutions, and on the other side, those whose ideas are half-hearted at best simply because they emotionally have no real desire to do anything whatsoever.
The attitude cannot be “If at first you don’t succeed, give up” , because that’s not gonna change anything or alleviate the very real issue of gun violence which isn’t made-up — right now, we can debate whether or not the legislation put forth is going to actually make things safer, but even if it fails, it’s no excuse not to move onto something else. The real issue I feel, is along the lines of what you said….that people cannot come to good solutions because they aren’t even on the same page to begin with: they are either thinking too much with their hearts, and not putting forth practical ideas that could actually change things, whether being too ineffectual or too arbitrary (Armed teachers? Are you kidding me?)…..or not putting forth anything worthwhile at all, simply because they don’t agree at all with changing things.
Things can’t get done if people aren’t even on the same page to begin with, and that’s why the legislation put forth can be seen as weak and half-hearted, and just leads to more disillusionment on ever actually doing anything on this issue….the can gets further kicked down the road, so to speak, and the gun control issue seemingly fades away….until of course another horrifying incident occurs, and then this whole thing starts all over again. It’s a horrible horrible cycle that must be broken sooner or later if things are actually going to improve on this front whatsoever.
We cannot pretend that this isn’t an issue, whether out of patriotism (as before, it’s a horrifying realization that we’ve subconsciously rationalized this violence as acceptable collateral for the right to wield firearms), or that we must arm ourselves and pretend to be vigilantes to protect against the rise of imaginary tyrants…..but that also doesn’t mean reflexively responding with well-intentioned fervor when something does happen, where the drawn-up solutions are simply too arbitrary or ineffective to actually change things, never mind get signed into passing at all.
Right now, for instance, there doesn’t seem to be that much loud passion for the Gun Control issue anymore, because, except for the poor families of Newtown who will continue to grieve, memories of the latest gun incident is passing into indifferent memory…..that doesn’t mean we can just continue to forget this is a problem! It must continue to have the relevance it deserves (more so actually), and not simply when a tragedy happens….unfortunately, even if that happens, bringing together these two opposites — those who are too emotionally invested and can’t bring up practical ideas, with those who aren’t invested in this at all because their ideals are completely different…..well, good luck getting them to even agree on the weather.
It’s a shame, because conditions will only continue like this unless something happens…the arbitrary fear of a specific dystopic future, under a malevolent anti-american dictator that we must “watch out” for, completely ignores our present exacerbating reality….while brokenhearted parents cannot bring something truly effectual to the table, whether because their measures are too weak or unpractical, or simply because they are trying to reason with those who belong to a sub-culture who only want more guns. I don’t pretend that this situation is simple, and indeed, this whole thing is as much as a cultural issue…but that doesn’t make things any less disheartening….it just makes you more cynical and disillusioned, until you just plain give up.
Perhaps these are the weak cries of an idealist, but as complicated as it may be, it doesn’t make things less wrenching when something happens, and the only response is random finger-pointing and general indifference.
by BW
A revolution that ends in a crashed economy and total chaos? You should be ashamed for helping to arm the idiot mob.
by silentrage
There are so many illogical posts here it makes my head spin.
By making these files simply available, no one is holding a gun to your head to print guns.
But if you ban them, then you are holding a gun to everyone’s head telling them they can’t print these files.
by Gabriel
Transcending the arbitrary to have more rational ways of thinking, and being, is a never-ending lesson of life that is harder than it seems: I would know.
by silentrage
I’m not getting your point, you may have to make it a little more direct.
But on the surface, I would say that we don’t even know that rationality is non-arbitrary.
by Spotted Marley
wow… the word gun brings out all the crazies
by Dr. Richard
Just as I thought I had outgrown my belief in Satan, this puke Cody shows up. Just because we CAN reproduce, does not mean that everyone should. This is total B.S. set in motion, by every Mothers nightmare…. Cody Wilson.
by Pete
Don’t deny people’s right to live/reproduce.
They are human beings too.
by silentrage
No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to print a gun.
But if you ban 3d printing of guns, then you are holding a gun to everyone’s heads telling them they can’t print guns.
See the fallacy in that?
by Bri
The big problem is that by banning it you force them to find alternative means to achieve their goals. At this point that’s just information. They will make a printer capable and get the print data necessary. You drive that underground and make them criminals. Then they will have more reason to overthrow the system. It becomes a revolving door with more energy pumped into it.
by Dennis R.
I agree with Bri’s assessment wholeheartedly. We’re looking at one individual and one type of activity and suddenly we’re in favor of creating another type of criminal and a new type of activity that should be either criminalized or over-regulated. Based on this one video.
I could easily imagine this video was created and posted by individuals/groups who DON’T want 3D printers of any sort so they create an individual and group most likely to provoke a reaction that would effectively undermine an exciting new device.
This video and the timing of it provoked some strong responses in the comments. But no “crimes” are committed in the video and no one in the video was victimized. Some of us are reacting to other independent events. Please don’t fall for this type of manipulation.
by Bri
Interesting that you perceive the manipulation. You are right. Like wind up soldiers. Powerful interests are utilizing public sentiment and manipulating it. They are playing both sides wgainst the middle.
by tedhowardnz
Is it ever any other way?
by Gabriel
“Can 3D printing be subversive? If it can, it will be because it allows us to make the important things, not trinkets, not lawn gnomes, but the things that institutions and industries have an interest in keeping from us. Things like access, medical devices, drugs, goods, guns. DEFCAD will provide access with a view to these things, the important things, and there will be no takedowns, ever.”
……..I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help squinting and shaking my head at this.
This paragraph here just seems to be way to excited and giddy for the wrong things, almost like this person is looking to start trouble with his fancy new Star Trek replicator, and then chalking it up to his personal freedoms and liberties if someone “dares” to question him….that some people don’t understand that rights come with responsibilities, that freedoms can and shouldn’t be abused, is simply very scary.
For many many people in this country, America is ever poised in a precipice….they have this fear that they must act like vigilantes, watch the Watchman, and protect against the rise of supposed tyrants….what’s scary, is that like so many other overreaching fears, my personal concern is that these sorts of fears will become self-fulfilling prophecies….that, to make an example, the fear that some people have of China taking over and thus we must arm themselves with our ridiculous defense budget (bigger then the next six or seven nations combined) will end up being the catalyst for the supposed conflict we superficially were trying to avoid and defend ourselves against…..point blank, that some people cloak themselves in defense, patriotism and rights of personal liberties, but perhaps, on some level, wanted a conflict all along….why? I guess they were just that scared.
It’s this same mentality that explains how, every time a school massacre happens, people mourn about how about how tragic this is, but gun control? Oh no, that’s for another time….yes, there are many responsible gun owners, I am not denying that…but, and I’m sure some people will disagree with me on this, the sheer horror and damage that happens when an incident DOES occur, is so traumatic and damaging, that something MUST be done to limit the danger….that a talk and decisions must be made, so that even the most basic common-sense measures can be put in place.
Liberties are not a free license to do whatever I want….and there isn’t a big enough realization of that: I have freedom of speech, but I’m not free to really say what I want and be exempt if somebody doesn’t like it. My personal liberties as an individual are very important to me, fundamental even, but that doesn’t mean I’m blind to the greater good, the greater whole of the country I live in….yet some would rather live in a modern-day Wild West where everyone is armed and protected and ready to fire just in case “the other guy” may start something….is this perpetually fearful world the sort we really want to live in? Where things like trust, self-control, empathy and reason give way to fear-driven absolute individual empowerment? Where children can be killed by military-grade weapons, but nobody wants to do anything about it because the arbitrary personal liberty to own a small armory is more important than questioning whether this liberty you want so badly is worth the price? Some people will aggressively disagree with me, but I wonder if the greater good is more important then the individual liberties sometimes.
Why am I saying all this? ultimately to make a point: this 3-D technology may well be abused (undoubtedly in the name of “freedom”, patriotism and all the rest), and technology itself is Neutral as others have said…and yet, as much as maintaining our privacy and personal liberties are important, we have to think about the greater good of society as well….that our freedoms cannot be freely abused without consequence, and no matter how tempting it might be or the empowerment we gain from it….that we could have the awareness that some things just aren’t worth the risk….that some freedoms down the line, just aren’t worth the responsibility and we’re better off without them on our shoulders. Bill Joy said “We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes….The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.”….I’d like to think we can take that closer to heart as, as transhumanists believe anyway, we seemingly move closer to the cybernetic Q Continuum.
“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”
- Sigmund Freud
As before, it doesn’t have to be an arbitrary/absolute one or the other….the pervasive fear of the government taking away everyone’s guns, which is at the rotten core of the gun control debate in America, is not only false but unrealistic (in fact, it’s false because it’s unrealistic: there are simply too many guns out there)…the solution can simply be common-sense practical measures to limit the dangers that this liberty we want so much could do. Even so, I’d like to think, as is the point of this entire post, that we could broadly relinquish if that’s what it came too…that we were willing to give an individual liberty up because the risk, the cost, was simply too great…and even though we may lose a sense of personal empowerment as individuals, it just wasn’t worth it.
by Dr. Richard
You, can think! Thank You! Well said.
by Gabriel
Thank goodness the Editor gave people the option of editing posts – you have no idea how much I deleted so much what I originally said before I was afraid of saying something stupid, somehow overreaching myself, or make an error somewhere. Even now, I’m still questioning if I should have opened my mouth at all.
But even if it’s bad, It’s just another lesson for me on tact and to think before I act….for some reason, I’m still learning that >_>.
Even so, I wrote all these things because I feel it’s a point (that some liberties are worth re-evaluating their actual worth, whether fine-grained or broadly) worth making and something to consider; and even though people may disagree with me, we can at least be reasonable enough to have a fair and civil conversation without resorting to personal attacks. As I said, I did my best not to overreach myself and to think carefully on what I wanted to say, but you shouldn’t also let your fear of your words disagreeing with others point of view stop you from getting your voice out….I don’t think what I said was all THAT radical.
EDIT: Uh oh, my post just got marked for moderation. May I ask why?
by Editor
Re “the Editor gave people the option of editing posts…”: to clarify, this required finding and testing a reliable WordPress plug-in that won’t crash the website, rather than a decision to provide the option.
“My post just got marked for moderation. May I ask why?” Akismet (the standard WordPress spam filtering service) or own own list marks posts for moderation when text in the post or header matches a word or phrase on the list. It’s totally automatic. Sorry for the delay involved, but this is necessary to prevent spam taking over.
by Gabriel
….Oh! Thank you very much for the response. Here I thought that I got moderated for going too far. I’m aware my post was very political, and is sure to draw the wrath of many people who disagree with me, will call me unAmerican….indeed, my post wasn’t perfect (and neither am I) and still isn’t….
I’m going to leave it up though, good or bad. It touches alot of delicate issues, and has a viewpoint alot of people will disagree with, but whatever happens happens. If nothing else, hopefully people will understand that I’m always growing and trying to improve myself.
by Bri
@Gabriel: please don’t feel so guarded in your words. You are more than circumspect in your manners. Everyones imput is valuable even if it is far afield.
The words you wrote will fall on deaf ears for those consumed with fears of lose of liberty. Your points are very true and real. The problem is conveying them to those who are in opposition to you. In practicality there is no way. That is why I postulated a world where we have been responsible and have banned weapons and the means to produce them. It is a false sense of security. Soon anyone will be able to make WMD’s by an endless number of means. We will have 3D printers that will print just about anything. The information can’t be suppressed. Taking sides and trying to win a war against this information only sets you up as a combatant. The solution is more information and understanding not restriction. Address the root causes of these conflicts not the methods of expression. Whether it is an assault rife, old fashion gun powder or a new biological agent, is the method of expression. The person wielding these weapons is doing so because of perceived injustices. Their fears and insecurities are the root. They are defining their world as an us against them. That wall or divide, where they feel exclusion is the wall that needs to be torn down. If they perceive themselves as complete and unviolated, they no longer have need of retaliation.
by Micah
I like your train of thought, but the fear that drives people to protect their liberties from the government is that the government itself reserves the right to employ these horrible weapons against its own population. What makes Colt or Remington or any other corporation or government more responsible to employ and manufacture weapons? The other implication of 3-D printing is that we will proliferate things that are not needed and wast resources on making sure that every person has every widget imaginable. There is danger that we will accelerate collapse of human civilization through rapid resource depletion and mass violence. We need to implement resource sharing and intelligent resource management, practicing peaceful coexistence individually and collectively. Our economic system coupled with a flawed and outdated understanding of the human condition and the necessary requirements for human prosperity is holding us back from living in a peaceful world of abundance where weapons are no longer relevant or useful tools. Unless things change this will indeed accelerate the evolutionary journey towards transhuman and post human civilization. The sad thing will be that there won’t necessarily be many people left to make the transition and the human legacy will be cut short before we truly became a civilised society who could live in balance with each other and our shared biosphere.
by Dennis R.
I share some of your sentiments, but I’m not sure I can accept that all humans are capable of becoming transhuman. I believe much of the human population will die off in much the same way that Neanderthals did. And I apologize if that seems harsh to anyone. I fully expect to be among those who die before or after the Singularity.
by Bri
I think we will branch off. Those that will want to remain human will continue. Those that imprace yranshumanism will become something else.
by Locke
Your heart is in the right place, but I would argue that some of your points are downright naive.
The United States is a superpower nation. Almost every superpower in history has either died out under its own weight and become fraught with corruption or it has become positively evil and tried to take over the world and exterminate its undesirables.
The US has one thing none of these other superpowers had, namely a specific limit on government power to subjugate its population, set down by the people who founded the nation. Just because you feel right now that leaders are benevolent and have your best interests at hand, does not mean that will be true forever. Statistically the US is bound to take a wrong turn down Evil Avenue sooner or later.
While your replicator analogy is apt, Cody Wilson is not actually producing anything and he does not seem “giddy” for all the evils these items will inflict upon the world, but for all the evil and injustices which they could potentially snuff out. He is willing to look like an evil man to those who do not understand exactly how precarious lasting freedom is, but does that make him evil? Imagine if the German Jews had access to these technologies in the early days of World War II? World history might have looked very different and someone like Cody Wilson would have been a hero for all time.
Your focus on “the greater good” is rooted in your perception of how things are right now and your own subjective idea of that concept, but you fail to look ahead at how they might be 2, 4, or 100 years from now.
Yes, there are evil people who will abuse technologies to commit unspeakable atrocities, like murdering defenseless babies in a school. Some argue that limiting these technologies and relying on bad people’s inability to think creatively in their evil endeavors will make everyone safer, instead of living with the consequence of bad people and take strides to actively protect against these horrors.
But I ask you, why does the atrocity itself suddenly make something important to focus on? If you see a plane crash on the news, your immediate reaction is to not want to fly anywhere for a while, so you take the train instead. This is merely a trick of the brain which is consistently shown to foster bad decisions. Just look at the Patriot Act and how it was quickly implemented following 9/11. I do not wish to make light of terroristic acts and the murder of babies, but unfortunately the greater good which you mentions might actually supersede our instinct to “do something”, keep a level head, and mull things over very thoroughly before we finally take an action which could at a future date end up causing more people harm than if we left things the way they were. I am sorry if this seems cold to you, I personally wept for a week after the tragedy in Newtown, but I did not allow myself to let these very strong emotions override my rational faculties, because they are constantly at odds in the human psyche.
The unfortunate truth is that every single day we live with things which are used to commit murder or cause fatal accidents in society. However, because they are not high profile “instruments of killing”, they do not receive the same attention. Hammers, alcohol, iPhones (texting while driving is becoming a leading cause of traffic deaths), and swimming pools all cause many more deaths than the very limited range of guns being discussed today. There are laws governing each of these things so they will not cause harm, yet people intent on causing harm or negligent in their behavior pay no attention to these laws. Still we live with these items because of their convenience to our daily lives, despite the fact that criminals use them to break the law.
Guns do not enjoy the same luxury. In the hands of a responsible individual their convenience lies in never having to be used. They even cannot be defended by using a fire extinguisher as an analogy, because most people have a hard time seeing how a gun can save a life, they see them solely as takers of life. No distinction is ever made if the life they take is worth more than the life they protect.
That is why they are specifically protected by the US Constitution. The people who founded the country and wrote that document realized these facts. That the ability to protect yourself from bears, criminals, or even a rogue government should never be able to be taken away from you in the name of security, because it might leave you with neither.
Your Freud quote sums it up nicely, people will do nothing to protect their freedom until it is too late. There are mass graves scattered across this planet which testifies to that.
by Fred
The Law by Frederic Bastiat…. You may wanna read that
by B
Technical freedom fighters, go!
by tim the realist
People buying and driving cars are way more dangerous than any 3d printed weapon ever will be. Unless you count printed cars as weapons.
by Bri
Miss managed health care beats them all by a long shot. There is an orchestrated movement toward anarchy. People are being wound up like toy soldiers.
by DG
Printed guns are coming. Home grown diseases too. You’ll be telling your grandchildren how people used to go outside with no barrier suit…or google glass….
by Bob Vasquez
Ho hum. Tennis, anyone?
by Bri
Unfortunately this is the new game and we are forced to play it. We just don’t have to play it by their rules. Ball is in your court now.
by tedhowardnz
Agree Bri
All tools are morally neutral, it is the use we put them too, and the intentions we have, that define morality.
It seems to me that there are many major threats to humanity.
Perhaps the two largest are:
A tendency to create rules for people to follow, rather than to teach people to use their own judgement in all cases as to what is appropriate behaviour.
A tendency to use market values in high level decision making. Markets can only ever (in logic) value abundance at zero, and therefore, markets must inevitably lead to the destruction of the very abundance upon which life depends. Markets (and money) are great tools for distributing scarce resources, and they fail to deal effectively with production and maintenance of abundance for all people. This fundamental reality, and the injustices it propagates, form a serious existential threat to us all; for when people who have been seriously wronged, get access to complex technology and have only one purpose (punishment of the wrongdoers) then the results are unlikely to be pretty.
So yeah – some bumps on the road, and it is still my belief that we can produce a world of systems that deliver abundance for all (with security and diversity and freedom for all), we just cannot do so by restricting our thoughts within economic paradigms.
by cserez
Nice thoughts. Worth to carve them on the grave of the human race…
by Bri
I particularly like your references to reasons for controlling finance and retaliations to perceived wrongs. The big trick is how to enlighten people to these issues without imposing rules and restrictions. In the long run I’m optimistic, it’s the short term that is most troubling. It’s why I refer to it as bumpy. Their is a growing understanding. It just needs to be fostered.
by silentrage
The only thing more dangerous than giving access to the people, is restricting it to governments and corporations. If anything, history has demonstrated repeatedly that bureacracies are not concerned with anything but self preservation, and it is perfectly happy and willing to dispense of its subjects in order to do so.
Information is power, information is liberty, and information cannot be restrained, attempting to do so will ALWAYS cause more harm than good.
Those of you who frequent this site and presumably have a progressive view on technology, should examine your own arguments against DEFCAD and see that it is as invalid as ludditism when it comes to the singularity.
And don’t even get me started on the fallacy that if anything is illegal then it must be evil and prohibited. This goes back to my starting argument, legality has nothing to do with morality, it is strictly a tool for those in power to remain in power.
by cserez
Finally , some honest words from an ultraliberal-anarchist. You do not need any governmental restrictions. Surely, no government needs your vote either. I hope, your rage remains still silent.
by silentrage
I’m actually a socialist and I vote.
Keep reading what you wanna read.
by Bri
I don’t think the creators of this controversy think of themselves as liberals. They see themselves as conservative. They are trying to bolster the second amendment. Things have changed since the times of muskets and militias, when the constitution was written. They want the same toys that the big boys play with, in order to even the playing field. There are other work arounds. Strange game the only winning hand is not to play. There are other games to play. Far more than one way to achieve the same goals.
by Dennis R.
I think this particular video and the narrow focus on 3D printing of guns and accessories is a distraction from the larger issue of getting 3D printers into the hands of as many people as possible with as few restrictions as possible.
If you want to send this guy some money, feel free. I choose not to. If someone were to create a website devoted to 3D printing of something more creative/positive/life-affirming/whatever– then I might donate. And I’d hope to have the “freedom” to do so.
This guy/this video these are just strawmen. Look at the potential beyond guns. That’s what real “revolution” could be like.
by cserez
Please, remove this website review. Unless it will be considered as if KurzweilAI.net would advertise violent ultraliberal-anarchist movements.
by Editor
KurzweilAI is not advocating or advertising such movements, nor does our news post linked to an article in VentureBeat constitute a review.
by cserez
All right. Then please, remove the news post or at least the embedded YouTube video. It turns out that DEFCAD is intended to give free access for everyone to have their own 3D-printed machine gun. This way avoiding all the strict legislation policies in effect in most of the countries where possessing a gun for a layman is strictly prohibited.
by gavralin
No way. This posting is news worthy and relevant to the topic of accelerating technology (3D printing). It should not come down.
by Bri
I may disagree with what you say but I will die for your right to say it. Knowledge or understanding is always a better policy.
by SmartAndSober
Yes, keep the video. Let information be free. We are human beings, who are more intelligent and more capable of self-direction than any animals.
No one can change the system other than ouselve.
When ‘push comes to shove’, the only human being you can count on to
identify your intregrity is yourself.’ — Lani Picard
by Micah
The four basic forms of government a defined by Emanual Kant are as follows:
A. Law and freedom without force (ANARCHY).
B. Law and force without freedom (DESPOTISM).
C. Force without freedom and law (BARBARISM).
D. Force with freedom and law (REPUBLIC).
According to Kant Anarchy cannot be violent. Of all the forms of government Anarchy is the only one to eschew Force (violence). Whether in the hand of an individual or the state violence is a destabilizing and terrorizing force. No legitimate control come through the use of Force (Violence). Anarchy is not the problem it is the solution, the empathic application of technology to human concern is tool we use to get there. It is not that Anarchist don’t want laws they want to create the conditions that make laws unnecessary and irrelevant. This is the way you get around having to use Force (Violence) to impose the collecive will.
by Aaron
It’s a scary world when any psycho can just print a gun. While the guy in this video has some valid points does he take any steps to insure that this doesn’t happen?
by Joel C.
We desperately deserve to have an artifical intelligence to guide us with a firm but fair hand.
by Porkov
Where are the sex toys?
by Alex M.
I presume you are typing with one hand! Enjoy!
by kritz
There is one way to help …. Flood the space with ill functioning digital data.
As any engineer knows – without proper tolerancing you may get one of something together – but you never will know if it won’t blow up in your face- or crash into the ground.
by Ralph Dratman
I see, you mean, put out a lot of plans for slightly out-of-spec gun parts, or inadequate stiffeners in key locations, that sort of thing. Interesting.
As we amplify our capabilities as humans+technology, we naturally expose new dangers along with new comforts and achievements. There is no alternative, I guess.
by Joe
This guy could end up bringing a lot of harm to a lot of people.
by Rob
I agree… it seems like he doesn’t care the implications of following his ideals… history has shown this is the most dangerous type of leader, because they burn for power at the expense of being receptive to the fragility of life.
by Cloudswrest
This is trivial stuff. What’s a far more existential risk is malicious GMO. Take the mousepox experiment as an model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4318-us-develops-lethal-new-viruses.html . If this same modification was done to smallpox humanity could be in serious trouble. Conceivable this could all be done in a garage. Twelve Monkeys anyone?
by Dennis R.
I think his point is that a lot of people would be empowered by having the means of production available to them. That upsets the status quo and is pretty scary because it seems like such a radical change. But it doesn’t need to be scary and it doesn’t need to be all about guns. Certainly there are sociopaths who would use these devices for the most horrific purposes. But people are already using store bought items for horrific purposes. The majority of humanity doesn’t do that. Given the capability, most of us stil won’t do that. Let those who choose to pursue a narrow path flood the market with weapons and gun makers will make less money. (But ammunition manufacturers will probably profit.) Lots of other people will be using 3D printers to create new and better tools for science, art, teaching, what-have-you. Those are the people you want to empower. The man in the video is in the vanguard. That doesn’t make him a leader. He’s just early and noticeable at the moment. 3D printing is much more than self-important machismo. Look past this guy. And just to be clear I’m not giving him of his organization any money.
by Bri
The best way to teach is not to punish and focus on what is wrong , but to encourage and focus on what is right.
by Rob
Thanks for that dose of sanity. It bothers me how many people seem to judge the mass of humanity against a few insane persons. Most people are decent human beings and will do the right thing if it’s expected of them. Unfortunately, as things stand right now, people are not expected to be good and decent, they’re expected to be victims of anything but irresponsibility on their part. That is the force behind most of the conflict in our society today.
by mark
Yet another clear example of how our technology has exceeded our brains’ neural capacity to look very far down the road to see all the destructive unintended consequences that will result. Human beings actually NEED parental controls.
by Andy
In the last hundred years government criminals have killed a couple magnitude more people than private criminals. So much for Big Brother being the “parental” control. Those that want parental control live in their parent’s basement.
by Aaron
I recommend you read up on civil liberties, and why they exist. So you are able to look at this person and determine that he can’t make good decisions for himself? You will force him to make the right decision? Maybe you’re right about him, but once you create such a power, it can be taken from your hands and used against you. Eventually, *you* will be the one forced to do things you don’t agree with, in the name of your own good. And maybe the person who will call the shots for you won’t be right. How do we as a society determine who ought to control whom? How do we decide who is wise enough to decide for others against their will?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
by TomZarek
Which is exactly what these anarcho-libertarians stand against. The philosophy can be summed up as easy as this: “don’t tell me what to do.”
by harmil2
Reminds me of play therapy with a group of 4 and 5 year olds running around yelling “your not the boss of me!”
by pt
Or, I don’t know, freedom? Provided that we actually put any legitimate effort into understanding the brain and create a society where mental wellness is ubiquitous, 3D printed guns are very far down on the priority list of serious dangers, especially when balanced out with the benefit that unrestricted 3D printer use will provide. The only people that need parental controls are that way due to reasons that relatively simple medical technology will provide. No technology is without risks, and considering the potential of uncontrolled 3D printing to save and improve lives, it balances far in the direction of a net benefit.
by Tom
You’ll need 3D printed psycho-therapeutic medicine first. My girlfriend got fired from her job and is going to lose access to her anti-anxiety meds soon.
But if it were possible to replicate all medicines from a robust computerized process, would the FDA really let us use any of those production devices? I’ve worked for certain companies to remove all medical devices from the online market. You can no longer get access to syringes, catheters or any number of lifesaving/improving tools without authorization.
3D printers already can make that stuff, I think that legislators will catch on pretty soon and realize 3D printing is going to kill more jobs than they make, challenge their moral authority and render tons of trade commodities and unnecessary, meaning a drop in income through customs. That’s when they’ll start making reckless prohibition laws and our only response can be populist revolt or deadening submission to a forced-scarcity economy.
by Bri
In the near future it will be surprisingly easy to make a 3D printer yourself. There are kits available already. The populist revolt ideas is in the right category. Our government is based on we the people. We need to excersise those rights in a peaceful organized fashion. Like in V for Vindetta. You’d be surprised to see how reasonable those ” anarchist” can be if they are given a method of achieving their goals without having to print out a thermo nuclear bomb. Even those people that I refer to as the ” illuminati are more human than people realize. In the long run it’s more of a question of communication, but it’s not as simple as that. Everyones hearts have been hardened by experience.
by Dennis R.
I’m not sure that a job preventing people from buying medicine and medical devices is a job worth preserving.
The loss of jobs is similar to the arguments being used against robotics. The point is to get useful devices in the control of people who can create more useful devices. And that is potentially everybody. Yes, some people will misuse them. Yes, some manufacturing jobs will disappear. But 3D printing has the potential to make these goods more affordable and more accessible. That’s something which economists will need to study and wrestle with for a long time after it’s already started. In the meantime people can get (create) what they need more quickly and more economically.
3D printing will be a huge change for all of us. The focus on guns makes this scary. But the fabrication of life saving and life enhancing tools will be a much bigger part of the story that eventually unfolds. We need to focus on securing that eventuality by making these tools more widely available rather than restricting them.
by Rob
I don’t get why people are so worked up about jobs. How many blacksmiths do we have today? Sure they lost out when the automobile came on the scene but the internal combustion engine lead to the creation of entire industries that did not exist before the automobile was shown to be a viable invention. The same thing with robotics and 3D printing. This will have the effect of lowering costs for material production and can only lead to a higher standard of living. An indirect benefit of this will be an increase of leisure time as people won’t need to work as hard to meet their needs. Regulating this industry will only lead to the few having access to it, instead of everyone.
by Bri
There is a symposium coming to Lincoln Center on June 15 &16. One of the lecturers will be a Dr. James Martin. He will speak about this issue. If you want to understand why it is so different from past experiences, look the summit up on the web and listen to his promo. GF 2045, you don’t have a good enough understanding of the issues involved.
by Bri
We’re in for a bumpy ride!
by Ralph Dratman
That is for sure. Very bad new things will definitely happen in our ever-expanding technosphere, along with some good ones too. We don’t exactly have a choice in any of this.
by Bri
Choice is an illusion between those with power and those without. We are all becoming empowered. If you have gray goo and you want to unleash it against the world, what choice does the rest of the world have? Make better gray goo? Limit their access to gray goo? Or address the reasons that they need to be empowered to take away your choices.
by tedhowardnz
Hi Bri
Several issues in that wee post, choice, illusion, power.
Choice seems to me to be at the heart of all considerations, and generations of philosophers seem to me to have made a hash of it. It seems clear in logic and the biochemistry of life that choice requires some degree of randomness and unpredictability, which is what the mathematics of QM seem to indicate underlie our existence. The probability functions that define the boundaries between lawful and random behaviour seem to determine much of the default nature of reality, and they all seem to leave room for advanced systems of patterns (such as ourselves) to have some recursive influence (choice).
It seems very likely, in a world where we all start with nothing, and proceed by process of accepting cultural paradigms and then challenging and or transcending them by use of our own logic and intuition, that there could be an infinite series of paradigm transcendence available for experience (in the realm of the possible).
In such a world, all experience is likely to have some aspect of illusion to it, and perceived power is likely to be very dependent on the paradigm set in use by any given individual.
One of the currently dominant illusions present in society is that evolution is based solely on competition. This is false. Evolution by natural selection is a process that involves competition and cooperation in equal measure. All great advances in levels of evolved systems have involved new levels of cooperative behaviour (stabilised by appropriate attendant strategies such as “tit for tat” or “retaliator” or any of a seemingly infinite class of such strategies).
It seems clear to me that the most effective way to create stability is to create new levels of cooperation, through widely distributed trust networks with near real time communication and appropriate support and retaliatory strategies. At some level, force must be matched by force, that seems to be the nature of reality; and the most successful strategies seem to involve preventing actually using the force merely by displaying the ability and the will.
My work in law enforcement showed me that roughly 15% of people were compliers who obeyed rules at all times, about 80% of people were conditional compliers, and about 5% were non-compliers. With distributed trust networks, the 80% could be rapidly bought to focus against any serious threat, in only 6 steps (of degrees of separation). That could be a very powerful stabilising force. The technology for such distributed trust networks is not quite with us, the current internet is too centralised, and open to interference. And the technology for truly distributed and resilient networks is rapidly developing, and will be with us very soon.
So I remain cautiously optimistic for both freedom and security; and it seems that our currently dominant economic paradigm will be a necessary casualty of the process.
by Dennis R.
Compliance and freedom are two very different things. And security for whom?
My herd instincts are probably as strong as anyone’s but I’m not sure I want to surrender my decision making capabilities to the powers-that-be… whoever they are at the moment.