[p2p-research] Is the future of distributed manufacturing in China?

Wed Apr 28 16:36:12 CEST 2010

Hi Michel and P2P Research list... (replies follow inline)

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam, is the prediction below true and realistic?
>
> Topic: [singularity] The Ultimate Manufacturing Machines
> Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> Apr 27 12:34PM -0500 ^
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve Richfield <steve.richfield at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:30 PM
> Subject: [singularity] The Ultimate Manufacturing Machines
> To: singularity <singularity at v2.listbox.com>
>
>
> There has been much discussion about distribution of resources, yet there is
> a continuing misunderstanding that seems to underpin all sides of this
> discussion:
>
> REALLY ADVANCED CNC (Continuous Numerical Control) manufacturing machinery,
> some of which exists today, is instantly reconfigurable to make many very
> different things. Just put CNC into eBay and see some of what you can now
> buy on the used market. This march toward ultimately flexible manufacturing
> machinery is clearly headed toward a manufacturing facility that can
> efficiently manufacture just about ANYTHING, and do it a LOT cheaper than
> robots ever could. Of course, these are just another form of robot, able to
> take files directly from CAD (Computer Aided Design) programs and directly
> turn them into the desired physical objects.
>

Good so far, the above paragraph is indeed true...

> To understand where this is heading, you must first understand the operation
> of a modern Screw Machine. In these, several, typically 6-8 chucks hold
> pieces of material that are being machined to a particular shape, In one
> kerchunk, an equal number of tools are applied to the chucks, but each tool
> performs a different operation, and the tools are retracted. The chucks then
> rotate one position, while dropping a finished part into a bin and loading a
> new piece of unmachined material into a chuck. In short, you can stand there
> and watch a screw machine going chunk, chunk, chunk and see finished parts
> emerging at the one-per-chunk rate. No robot could ever operate a lathe to
> function at anything approaching such a rate.
>

The above paragraph doesn't really make too much sense. Most of these
screw machines are now at least "cybernetically" controlled (meaning
as set switches, relays controls the sequence of tools applied) if not
computer controlled. Plus, he just said above that CNC machines are
"really just another form of robot". So, it appears that robots *CAN*
function at such a rate. So the above comparison just doesn't even
make sense at all. They are both robots according to his definition.

> There are other machines that can make ANYTHING from tubing, make ANYTHING
> from sheet metal, etc. Put an assortment of these machines in one large
> building, and nothing but another such building can compete.
>
> China is now moving in this general direction, buying up the machinery in
> shut-down American plants.

I'd love to see the real figures of who is buying up machinery in shut
down plants. I would bet it is not just the Chinese. Plus, it really
doesn't matter who is buying it all up. If there are markets for goods
produced by tooling that is made for mass production, the tooling will
be in use. If not not, the tooling will sit idle. Right now, the
markets for mass production are growing in China (Chinese people
buying products, cars etc) and shrinking in Europe and US.

> Once this transition is complete, ALL
> manufacturing will be done in city block sized manufacturing facilities and
> NOT in anyone's garage, nor with anyone's robots.
>

Anyone with an even mildly functioning brain has to know this is
preposterous. The void of manuacturing in the rust belt alone is
already seeing an increase in new production in many different ways.
ALL production will happen in many different ways.

> The ONLY questions here are:
> 1. Who owns those city blocks?

> 2. What (if any) tax structure is to be imposed, by a government that is
> 100% controlled by those city blocks?
>
> C'mon now, let's move discussion to THIS quickly emerging reality.

I wonder where this person is talking about? China? If so, it could be
true. But not here in the US. In fact, industrial parks (city size
blocks of production) are exactly what is DYING here in the US.

Take a look at these pictures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Buickcityflint.JPG

That empty lot in that picture is your "City sized block of
production" in Flint, MI. It is an empty lot!

Here's one right in my home town from 2 years ago:

http://holocene.cc/card_images/0000/0117/289050669_8b0cb3be59_b__1__large.jpg

I could send you many, many, many, many more from 7 different states.
Each one a "city sized block" where the government USED TO BE
controlled by who owned those city blocks. But now the owners are
gone.

What he is talking about here is what is being torn down, not what is
coming. The past, not the future.

>Even
> Communism is "thinking too small", as bigger and bigger manufacturing plants
> will emerge to out-compete with smaller plants, etc., thereby dooming
> communes built around such plants, just as communities built around steel
> mills were doomed to fail.
>

This doesn't even make any sense. Centralization is NOT going to
out-compete diverse, agile, sustainable small producers. Centralized
production is dying, not growing.

> I presently see no socially conscionable choice but government ownership of
> these plants.

What plants!!!?!?!? Where are these mythical obelisks of doom he
speaks of? I can at least today show you people producing in their
garages. I simply don't know what the hell this guy is even talking
about. It doesn't resemble anything that I know of that exists
anywhere. Maybe he saw this in a Star Wars movie?

> No, I don't like this, but we need SOME realistic alternative
> if this is to be avoided, while not installing something that is even WORSE
> than government ownership.
>
> Any *realistic* thoughts?
>

No, I prefer the fantasy of my reality, thank you...

> Steve
>
> *singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8982485&id_secret=8982485-f19f7d1d>Your
> Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://p2pfoundation.net

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan