Kirill Rebrov

Startup author,

This conversation is closed.

Designing the model of Future: Manufacture paradigm shifts

Unfortunately my explanation is extremely large for a 2000 characters. But I want to share this idea with TED community, so I'd try to make a short explanation.
The forecasting of the future trends is not only imagination for me. One of the most valuable things is the Chain between tomorrow and today. Only connected Chain links which are extrapolated from today’s reality can produce a real forecast and show a clear view on the evolution process of particular field of industry or technology. But the future is not only one field or technology. Future is our life and built by many related fields: economy, industry, medicine, science etc. So my goal is to write Chain forecasts in many different fields of our life correcting each one if it conflicts with others at each Chain link making large self provable forecast system. I would also appreciate to any subject technology or field expert who can point me to my mistakes about field or technology trends, specifics etc. As a result it will ideally lead to the maximally accurate forecast of our future at each chronological Chain link. In other sense it’ll also be something like the conceptual model of most optimal and better future.
My first analysis begins with a thoughts on upcoming manufacture paradigm shifts. It also affects a number of related subjects. As I mentioned above it’s impossible to suit these thoughts in 2000 characters so I invite you to visit my blog post with detailed explanation and join the discussion here on TED since it’s not my blog promotion. I hope some of you will find the idea to be perspective and interesting.

  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: ...

    Movies like iRobot and Terminator have already sketched some versions of such a future in which the statement 'The spirits that I called up will now not let me go.' sparkles anew and at a light which may is to come...

    I don't wish for a day in which '... there will be no clear line between us and AI', as it would clearly mark the day of human extinction! This would be the highest form of misuse of our technology and I refuse to join the choir of those who would name this day the liberation of our limitations.

    Fortunately I will not experience that day due to mortal reasons, yet I already criticize the credulousness before and about it.

    'But I also see positive tendency especially in our ‘given economy’ with its profit orientation.'

    Because of this 'profit orientation' we only see 'positive tendencies' on environmental issues in 2012 and it is not the 'driving force' for it and nothing but an opportunistic following!

    It is intelligent not to poison the well you are drinking from. It is not intelligent to stop poisoning because it just happens to become financial profitable. It is the intention, not the result, which is important to evaluate the true nature of our economy and if it serves our needs or goes against them.

    Therefore capitalism has to change for ' ... something more efficient.' and this better sooner than later, yet also here I am not able to follow your overal optimism, as I do not see any change on the horizon at the moment, on the contrary, as we are forcing capitalism to remain against all common sense instead and at the moment.

    As inventions are made to serve our needs and our needs are not subjected to require a verification upon its overall consequences, an intelligent prediction software, even if it was possible what I still doubt, would therefore consequently run into illogicality loops. To avoid that, the boundary conditions were to be changed in someones favour, which would lead to undermination of the AI intelligence itself ...
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: >I don't wish for a day in which '... there will be no clear line between us and AI', as it would clearly mark the day of human extinction!

      I think it’s stereotype. Yes, if somebody tells me today “I’ll insert two webcams in your eyes, ok?” I’ll run away because I don’t ready morally even if there is a need for improving my life quality. But is a moral(a changing variable in our history) a valid argument in the scale of all humanity? I look on this as on the evolution. Millions years ago we were not very similar to us today. The difference in transformation only in a number of years. Biological evolution is very slow so we can easily adapt to our look and form in the scale of generation. The new bio-technological evolution is much faster and will cause an extreme protest from many living people. But what if all newborn children born with microwaves as heads? It will be problem for us, but if it only improves their life quality it won’t be a problem for them. Everything is relative. We are just an evolutionary stage and who says that evolution must be only organic and/or w/o artificial modification(like natural selection is also a modification tool). What is the difference between organic and inorganic life? Only copyright. In case of AI we know that we created it. To be precisely we “seed” it.
      Yeah, there are some other counter-evidences like dystopia predictions about unfair applications of new technologies. I agree this is the subject for discussion in context of the goal of technology application, but not in context of the technology itself.

      >It is intelligent not to poison the well you are drinking from. It is not intelligent to stop poisoning because it just happens to become financial profitable.

      The second is more intelligent than continue poisoning. Also I see nothing bad in profitable green economy as the next good stage of development. Despite the fact that I am more inclined to a post-scarcity economy in the future(may be some day after "green" one)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Dystopia is nothing but experience, extrapolated. And this because technology has been released to often without an open discussion about its use, misuse and consequences.

        Technology for the sake of technology will only prove itself harmful to mankind, sooner or later, as it is missing the most important corrective: Humanity.

        You can see this today in many shades. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, anti person mines, cluster bombs, etc. ... All of these are especially design for low cost and high efficiency and even 'better' versions are in blueprint already.

        In my personal believe there are values in moral which remain constant over time, especially if they are about the life of human beings. The fact that those values have been violated in the past and get violated today does not justify its invalidity, nor does it suggest this sort of violation will ever be accepted in the future.

        So if it is about human extinction due to the substitution of all 'ineffective' human brains by AI -modules, the value of life will still be valid and therefore intervene in this cyborg horror scenario. And rightly so, as it denies this perverted and blind belief in technology, technocratic arrogance and lunatic self-love of efficiency.

        If you wish your children to be born with microwaves instead of heads because someone defined this would improve their life quality, go for it if you can, but do not expect anyone to have as much faith in those definitions as you then have...

        To improve life quality no one need to remove his or her original brain, not today, and not in 5000 years. Unless some hidden agenda is talking them into it, or, even worse, forcing them for another purpose than life quality. I am not talking about treatments for depression, dementia or stroke damage here, as it seems imaginable to have one day the technology on hand to work on that. But this would not be a full replacement, it would be a partial prosthesis - and that's a difference!
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Especially because natural evolution is a slow process, our minds are design for limited changing speed only. Even within your own lifetime you may get to notice one day, that with increasing age your mental flexibility will decrease to a certain extend. Partly due to lethargy, partly due to experience, as you may have found what suits you best and therefore have no need for changing it.

        Technology evolves already that fast, that even young people get problems to keep up to date with it in all possible fields. And the speed keeps increasing, as technology follows its exponential path of acceleration, to a point, that the majority of people will either fail to follow or conciously decide to do so. That time may serve as a turning point to remember, that 'speed of life' does not equals to 'quality of life'. And we already entered a period in human history were 'time' has become scarce to many of us. To me it is no coincidence that 'outburn syndromes' and mental issues have increased
        within the last 10 to 20 yeras, which, on historic time scale, is close to 'instant' and congruent to the acceleration curve of our technology and economy...

        Fixing this problem just by removing our 'slow brains' would be a consequence only for those who would mainly profit from it. I have my doubts that this would be the majority of the 'human' people...

        But I am on your side if it is about a post-scarcity economy in the future, as this to me is the only way to evolve our humanity for the best of all human beings. A prediction, if we will ever get there, I don't even dare to make, but I do hope for it.

        And, by the way, how would a webcam, replacing your eyes, improve your life quality? Aren't you satisfied with the sight you already have?

        And, by by the way, naming critical views 'stereotype' may avoid reflecting different views, as it is a form of generalization in negating opposite opinions.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: You are very dramatic. Dystopia is experience as utopia is experience too. Pessimism and optimism are both marginal.
      On your:
      > Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons...

      I can say:
      greatly increasing of life quality(yes not for every human in a world), medicine which have drastically reduced infant mortality and increase the life expectancy, Internet that ultimately increased access to all sort of information, communication and cooperation giving individual the opportunity to be really valuable in this world. And better versions are in blueprint already.

      I never was an optimist(even if some of my views are optimistic for pessimists). And yes, I see trade-offs.

      >In my personal believe there are values in moral which remain constant over time

      Most of our history moral was a weapon in hands of not very “moral” human beings. And when a moral switch to a new one, the old one becomes immoral :) Every moral is artificial since we initially are animals so the choice of a moral is a choice of one of the artificial value systems. I don’t state that it’s bad, I just want to say that the moral is artificial as technology is. And as technology the moral has its initial creator, its task and its adepts on historical scale. The real constant values are something like instincts. Something that is physiologically interpreted.

      >If you wish your children
      I don’t want to force my children to do anything w/o their perceived choice. And I don’t advocate anything to force other people do. I just don’t see so much horror, but I still open to alternative scenarios. The application policy of revolutionary technologies is very very important. And social development is one of the key factors here.

      >To improve life quality no one need to remove his or her original brain

      I leave it in the field of personal decisions. But no one can take away the right of blind to improve his life with bio-retina. Or take away the human right on physical immortality.
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Drama is used to highlight and counterbalance to much of 'good faith' here as all humanity is in peril!


        But maybe I didn't get my point clear. I am not against technology and its development over time, on the contrary, and beeing a mechanical engineer, it would serve quite counterproductive if I was...

        Yet I am against blind belief in technology, against technology which is used to kill people and against the misuse of technology in many forms if it is used against people.

        To me, with technological creativity and science comes responsibility to those who practice it and not only to those who are using the final outcome.

        40 years ago it was morally unacceptable to divorce in many societies. Today, some have evolved and divorce became accepted. Now, gay marriage is in discussion and it will take its time as well to get widely accepted. And even at times where moral was based in our 'swords', it did make a difference what killing was accepted and which wasn't. One of the highest achievements in our modern time was the agreement on the 'Charta of Human Rights' which is the lowest common denominator of all human life and is likely to remain constant as long as we do not fall back in barbarism.

        You saying 'The application policy of revolutionary technologies is very very important. And social development is one of the key factors here.' is going in the same direction.

        The mentioned 'human right on physical immortality' will become an interesting issue one day as it will - again dramatically :o) -conflict with the given right to decide for offsprings. On a limited planet with limited resources both rights would have to interdepend. You could not have both at a time ...
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: Maybe I wasn’t clear enough too. I am not technocratic as well. Anyway it is productive and interesting debate.

          > On a limited planet with limited resources both rights would have to interdepend. You could not have both at a time …

          That’s why I crossed my fingers while curiosity was landing :)
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: >Oh, on Curiosity I have already been 'dramatic' too in this forum ... :o)

          Get your hands out of Mars!:)))

          >good wine

          Good wine sounds good. As well as beer :)

          I heard about venus before. It was hard not to hear. With a bit of scepsis. But it’s reasonable to take note. Thanks for the tip
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Oh, on Curiosity I have already been 'dramatic' too in this forum ... :o)

        And it seems if we would ever meet in reality, we would hardly run out of topics to argue about and to have the chance of plenty of good wine and beer while doing so... :o)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: 'Get your hands out of Mars!:)))'

        Sorry, to late, and I could fill books about the stupidity of terraforming dreams the moment they try to hop out of science fiction... :o)

        The day we manage to live with and not against our planet, the day we end poverty and wars, the day we end hunger, and the day no one suffers on earth due to avoidable reasons and has free access to anything needed for a good life.

        That day, and if resources and technology allows to do so without harming anything else, I will be among the forefront speaker for such a project. And not a single day before... :o)

        So better don't get me started... :o)
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: >naming critical views 'stereotype' may avoid reflecting different views, as it is a form of generalization in negating opposite opinions

      didn’t want to insult or something. For me it’s not an abuse as we all have stereotypes(I don’t know the exact degree of this word in english). So I assumed the stereotyped nature of your attitude in this particular case.

      >But I am on your side if it is about a post-scarcity economy in the future

      Good to hear. I hope we’ll get there one day too. And I see it as not only the best scenario for the humanity, but also as logical scenario. I am going to write some more thoughts about post-scarcity in a blog.

      Talking about bio-evolution I don’t mean changes in the way of “removing brains”. I mean improving our brains in the way how biological evolution would do it in a million or 10 million years. It can be done not only with help of “cyborg horror” or “microwaves”(it was joke and webcams were joke too :) ), but with help of genetics or nanotech too. FYI about biological evolution of brain - I saw a news recently but didn’t verify yet:
      So I’d venture to claim that
      1. for post-scarcity we need the ultimately high technological level
      2. to achieve this level our brain is not the best tool. So AI is solution.
      3. to be friendly with an evolutionarily more advanced AI we have to be as advanced as it

      If you know another way to post-scarcity please let me know :)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Good to know you were joking, as I didn't really liked to picture that my colleagues would misuse my newly installed head to heat up their home made lunch at work ... :o)

        For a post-scarcity society I found some interesting ideas by Jacque Fresco:

        There are still many views I don't share, but it is well worked out and comprehensive in its conception.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: It is good to read about your optimism in worlds future, even though I can not share most of it. :o)

    'Year? That’s the most difficult part in prediction.'

    This, your comment, on smartphone alternatives made me smile, but I will just take it as a temporary uncertainty in your arguments, as your singularity prediction hard- and software has not been invented yet... ;o)

    About AI my views differ from yours to a high extend and I do not follow the thought that humans would change successfully into a hybrid life form to be able to compete with the technology they invented or which got started.

    At present the average human mind is using its brain capacity to a very low extend, not on purpose though, and not always due to a lack of training and/or education. It seems, that there is no way to activate this unused capacity we already possess and to make it accessible for personal use. What is causing this might be some form of a human cognitive 'light speed' barrier, above which no further progress could be achieved and this not even by additional cyborg extensions and without dissolving the orginial human personality.

    As intelligence is no matter of memorized information only, as it implies to make best use of it as well, a simple memory add on to our human brains may server well to remember phone numbers or peoples names, yet it would not necessarily boost any higher recognition.

    Humans have already accepted the fact, that a good chess program on full settings, outruns even the best among us in this game. And there may be a day we will, or had to, accept, that even the AI of our toaster outruns the best among us in any field of recognition and intelligence.

    At that point a Darwinian battle in between autonomous artificial life-forms with artificial intelligence could only be avoided, if humans managed before that day, to have implemented enough and hardwired emergency pushbuttons and Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics'.

  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: 'Predictions are difficult, especially about the future'

    This beautiful quote sums up my view on your idea due to the complexity and unpredictability of its nature.

    As the output quality of such a forecast system is only related on individual assumptions, ratings and interpretations, it would only be able to reflect those without any necessity of any correctness.

    I also assume, that even the theory of errors would not be able to evaluate such a system, which would therefore set each single trend forecast result somewhere within the realm of randomness. No major decisions would be able to rely on this and therefore would not be able to benefit or to become beneficial to others.

    This 'crystal ball' may would look pretty, yet that's about it it could do...
    • thumb
      Aug 19 2012: Good comment. Motivates to think deeper.
      I think it’s a question of tasks and purpose of such system. The predictions should be divided into long-term and short-term ones to begin with. Long-term predictions by design have no details that can be helpful for a specific important decision in particular domain. The short-term trends predictions require domain experts(not only “thinkers”) and are the practice of a business and applicable in real world.

      Even long-term predictions become more and more actual. The example of this is University of Singularity. The fact that, according to the law of accelerating returns or accelerating change, long-term predictions are becoming the short-term ones. If yesterday futurists were looking in decades or even century toward, today the similar predictions require to look in years or a pair of decades toward. Tomorrow it will require to look in months or years toward. The progress is exponential and predictions nature is exponential too becoming more and more realistic. This process will be until we reach the technological singularity. Of course if the technological singularity theory is correct :)

      So I’m convinced that futurist as a profession is both nascent and dying.
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2012: Futurology has been around for quite some while yet, short- and long term predictions are already in use within the industry and those I came in contact with, did not produce any useful result for a simple reasons : Reality and custom... :o)

        And even if this technological singularity theory was become true, it would not be more than greater-than-human superintelligence. So, what? Prediction is no matter of intelligence only!

        Even super smart, highly trained and creative neural network programs, maybe running one day on quantum computer, were not able to predict their very own creations in the future.

        Ther is just no prefetch algorhythm available - at least i don't know any - which would be able to calculate what will come to its own 'mind' three yeras from now.

        What forms the future in technological ways is creativity and knowledge. Combinations of new ideas and knowledge branches into newer ideas and knowledge, which branches into ... and so on and so forth...

        So even if a system would be able to parametrize the status quo, the combinational space of possibilities would be already beyond any possible and meaningful understanding and sense.
        How do you distinguish in between likely and unlikely trends within an economy which is highly emotional and which does not follow predictable rules? And after the next iteration step of this program? This goes exponential in combinations of predictions, which of course will contain true answers, yet you just have no way to isolate them from the flaws ...

        At that point it just turns into voodoo, and voodoo got to work in this field as well... :o)
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2012: It is hard to disagree that futurology is an inexact science :) It’s impossible to say how much will average smartphone cost in 2040. But it’s much easier to assume that there will be no smartphones in 2040.

          >What forms the future in technological ways is creativity and knowledge
          Yes, future is not becoming - future is being built. But are creativity and knowledge all ingredients of recipe of the future? What about current state of the world with its supply and demand? Creativity and knowledge are just tools that are focused on current demands. We are evolving from state to state and current transition is more predictable than human creativity independently. The paradox of human nature is that the society is much more predictable than individual is. Social engineering of course is not perfect but is much closer to predict the human behavior. The successful manipulations of large social groups are the proof. So the subject of futurology is only the ways how people with their creativity and knowledge accomplish transition from state to state and solve the current problems with current tools. And the number of these ways is quite limited. The greater our knowledge and creativity are the greater number of these ways we can generate. But on the other hand the more complex world we have already built the more restrictions it imposes on us. Of course prediction is still not an easy task, but theoretically it’s becoming easier from transition to transition.

          Regarding superintelligence. I mentioned that probably there will be no work for futurists because of the quantitative changes in “transition” from state to state. Assuming that every next transition after singularity will take much less time than previous one(almost or totally simultaneously by design) the number of ways to transit will be reduced accordingly. But it’s very hard to predict events in the world where prediction doesn’t needed by design :) So thoughts about post-singularity are just thoughts.
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2012: 'But it’s much easier to assume that there will be no smartphones in 2040.'

        This is a good point you made, yet what were your thoughts while writing that?

        Optimistic: Like a substitute by neural connected contact lenses?


        Pessimistic: Like a high tech relic of the past, which once was available to many in 2012?

        The vector of technological progress does change its direction. It did so in the past and it will in our future.

        What if this introduced superintelligence would come to the conclusion, that mankind still is to immature even for the level of technology they happened to develop and use already?

        Even the simplest algorithm for group behaviour working on the last 2000 years of our history was able to find out, that most of our creativity and knowledge was used against humanity, against nature and against our planet and that there was no traceable evidence that this tendency would ever turn for a better.

        Stanisław Lem, a brilliant Polish SciFi author, essayist and philosopher has thought about this sort of absurdity a hyper intelligent and artificial mind had to face by looking at the very species who created it, already a long time ago and in many different shades.

        In one of my favourite version, the most intelligent and wise among the super computers did choose to stop communicating with us, as he realized quickly, that wasn't dealing with an intelligent life form at all... :o)

        Given the current situation we have, what form of interpretation of the current data would your prediction program follow? Should it be rational or irrational, should it consider the optimisation of the common good, or rather fulfill the need of distinct yet smaller interest groups?

        Our given economy is based by its roots on continuous growth, on a planet with limited resources.
        Its main motivation, the maximisation of profit, does not support long lasting product design, as it needs the continuation of replacement due to repair and total product failure.
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2012: >This is a good point you made, yet what were your thoughts while writing that?

          honestly 2040 was a random number, but prediction is still valid :) I think substitution of mobile devices would begin with AR/VR glasses like google glasses. But such glasses have to overcome some conceptual flaws to be widely used. It must be lightweight, easy to use(even voice control is not perfect solution), independent from smartphones(google glasses is still dependent) and so on. In a word it must be loyal to current human lifestyle because every technology has its time to become widely used. The spreading of this glasses will open new horizons on market - AR-interiors, AR-clothes, AR local applications(e.g. menu in restaurant or a bus schedule on bus stop) and so on. Than after deeper changes in our lifestyle and technology development it will be a neural connected lenses. Year? That’s the most difficult part in prediction. Glasses will be popular in near 3-10 years. Than will be the age of lenses. But it’s very roughly.

          >What if this introduced superintelligence would come to the conclusion, that mankind still is to immature

          In my opinion AI will become an alternative intelligent life form one day. What does it mean(according to our today’s knowledge)? It means that AI will become our evolutionary competitor. But I’m pretty optimistic and agree with Kurzweil’s views on it. As you mentioned our lifestyle will be changed. It lets us to change ourselves too to become a hybrid life form - the hybrid of biological life and technology. It would be a natural evolutionary stage - to survive in the new world of technology and to evolve ourselves since biological evolution is much slower in contrast of technological evolution. So one day there will be no clear line between us and AI. Moreover if we’ll succeed with inorganic life form(Lee Cronin’s talk) there could be the third intelligent life form. But this is the case when predictions become just thoughts without deeper analysis.
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2012: >most of our creativity and knowledge was used against humanity, against nature and against our planet and that there was no traceable evidence that this tendency would ever turn for a better.

          I’m quite optimistic here too. I agree about 2000 years. And I agree about the environmental damage caused by mankind especially during the last century. But I also see positive tendency especially in our ‘given economy’ with its profit orientation. The investments in renewable energy sources exceeded traditional hydrocarbon energy sources investments and are growing each year. Renewable energy also accounted more than 16% of total energy consumption in 2010. And more importantly, I see green trends in society. The fact is that the business understands the importance of this industry for the future profits. Business looks toward in the future to be successful. For example there are even concepts to mine asteroids for resources. It’s not reality yet, but it is tendency I think.

          And returning to the mentioned Stanislaw Lem’s idea. Yes I am sure he is right in some degree. The World is not uniform. Some countries are the front of technological progress, but others still live by religious principles for example. And with every next evolutionary stage transition the gap between different societies and countries will be increased. The world is very heterogeneous. And I don’t know the attitude of superintelligence and post-humans to their less progressive, in terms of bio-technological evolution, neighbors. But I know traditional for humans aggressive attitude of these neighbors to everything new.
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2012: >Given the current situation we have, what form of interpretation of the current data would your prediction program follow?

          Very good question. My “prediction program” idea is more like designing the concept of future. I am also a supporter of evolution-like way. Such prediction program is not only passive prediction, but on the other hand prediction and designing are very intertwined. I’ll try to explain. When we deal with evolution(biological) some nature laws rule the process. And I venture to suggest these laws are perfect for their business. When we deal with technological progress we and only we rule the process. We are not perfect so every our step must be very careful and maximally predicted. There is another view on prediction: “what will be if we do this?”.

          Also I think we have to follow the rules similar to biological evolution. How to follow them if we ourselves being changed on each stage of evolution? Every time we change we have to adapt our new state to these abstract rules. For example capitalism is a good tool for a current state. Its motivation of profit is subjective, but the approach of competitive market is fairly objective and is very close to natural selection. So as a result capitalism works on evolution. Tomorrow capitalism will be changed on something more efficient. So we also have to learn more about ourselves.
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2012: Was this the definition for this prediction program of our 'current demands'? Or was it rather to use our resources wisely, to develop closed material cycles, long lasting and environmental friendly products, and to finally cover the basic needs for all humans on this planet?

        By this not even the prediction of the future stays uncertain, the result even depend on freely choosen boundary conditions, which do change over time as well and - unpredictable!

        I am not quite sure what your understanding of this 'singularity' is, yet I do not see any reduction of its transitions and no chance for any useful quality of its predictions.

        At the moment I rather have the feeling, that our current system is about to change in the near future. By this it would also cause a change in our lifestyle, our precious rituals and predictable group behaviour. Which way it will take I don't know, but I am certain that many if not all of us have to face a quite new reality than those in which we became used to.

        In 2040 smartphones may be nothing but collectables and reminder of a time were it was possible to talk with one another miles and miles away of each other...

        We came already far on this exponential curve of technological progress, and the acceleration of change we are whitnessing is proof of it. Yet this curve converts towards infinite, which neither our mentality nor our resources are either willing nor able to follow on for much longer.

        Demographic explosion, climate change, political riots, economical crisis, food, water and resource shortages, mass migrations, environmental disasters, etc., etc. are already visable on the horizon.

        Predictions of all of those have already been made, by scientists of today and in the past.

        And the only field I know of which is seriously taking this into account for the future is the insurance industry... and if one is for sure, insurance coverage is not going to become cheaper for force majeure and related matters... :o)
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: What about nano engineering?

    I like the ideas of Lean manufacturing (Edward Deming) as this involves the individual in the process.

    It seems to me that any worth while prediction will come from the market place and that is a hard thing to predict.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: I am convinced that nano engineering is a key technology in the future manufacturing industry. Especially when we’ll deal with a recycling foglets-like manufacture. 3D printing is just an evolutionary stage in the manufacturing industry which gave us a great(I believe) concept of decentralized manufacturing. But the next generation of 3D printers will be nanotech-based.
      I also mentioned Lee Cronin’s talk and the “inorganic life” technology as the possible source of unlimited materials for manufacturing, but this is a very new and raw idea yet.

      Concerning the involving individual in the process. One of the key concepts of new manufacture pattern is the extremely maximal involving of the consumer in manufacturing process. Individual needs only device(3D printer) and material(even materials will be almost or totally free(post-scarcity economy)). Individual can design the product by him or herself or use pre-designed digital models. There will be also a great number of communities where people share their models of jewellery, clothes, furniture and so on. Manufacture also will be modular so people can combine final product from different parts. All of this will reduce manufacturing wastes and greatly increase the role of end-user. I also hope it will give people more ways for their creativity.

      Totally agree that market is the most important variable that must be considered in prediction. That’s why I tried to focus on it in my blog post.
      Thank you for your comment.
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: The main goal of the idea is to develop the detailed model of future by making predictions of trends for different technologies and domains from manufacture to augmented reality. Each prediction is dependent on others to make the whole model more reliable. So final predictions must be proved by each other.

    The current prediction is about manufacture, its trends and fundamental changes due to particular technologies development. The key points are:
    1. Decentralizing
    Manufacture is developing by the way of decentralizing. The catalyst here is the fast developing technology of 3D printing. Every product in the future will be developed at home with your 3D printer(and more advanced devices in near future). There is also a demand as mentioned James Zhang. The new manufacture paradigm for an end-user means:
    1.1 products will become much cheaper and almost free at the further technology development
    1.2 time saving and more convenient and easy way to get products you want
    2. Recycling and ecology
    Manufacture is also developing by the way of recycling. It will become much safer for ecology and make materials almost free for an end-user: you don’t have to buy new materials for your 3D printer, you can redesign old things.
    My blog post describes in depth how this all will affect the economy, traditional supply chain of manufacture and cause further technology development and other social and technology domains. Also it describes why it will happen. Shortly we have 3 reasons:
    1. Personal
    It satisfies an end-user needs. Of course it doesn’t satisfy old manufacturers who will lose incomes but I explained why it will not be a problem for progress.
    2. Market
    It’s the way how market develops. It’s hard for new companies to enter old competitive market. The innovations and particularly the disruptive innovation pattern is the way how they enter the market and change it.
    3. Industry
    The recycling and ecology safety is also a growing need of the whole industry and humanity.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Ah ok, that's much better.

      I like to look at society as a Capitalistic system. Supply and Demand. There can only be change when people demand change, and when there's a demand for change, someone will respond with supply.

      I would read your blog post, but it's very long and tonight I don't have as much time unfortunately.

      I think you should find a way to explain your main points concisely so that other people with less time can approach it more easily as well, and I hope the language barrier won't make it too difficult. There's a saying: Less is More.
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: Hmm what is the "future forecast" and what is the "Manufacturing paradigm shifts" that you speak of?
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: I apologize for a language gap.
      The first one does mean forecasting or predicting the future. It is actually the subject of futurology.
      The second one means "Manufacture paradigm shifts". I’ve fixed. The fundamental changes in manufacture. My blog post is exactly about this. How will new technologies change the industry in context of product manufacturing.