Chris Anderson’s Makers and the New Industrial Revolution

The Maker Faire was almost a little overwhelming. I had a feeling it would be, especially for someone like myself who is a bit of a gadget geek. So my initial instincts were to go straight for the Seth Godin and Chris Anderson talks in the Auditorium which were back to back on Saturday.

Having recently been introduce to Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, I was curious about what he had to say about the concept of democratized learning as applied to the fields of mechanical, electrical and industrial engineering. I consider myself to be a 75% proponent of the concept and philosophy set forth in The Long Tail. I also recently read some opposing viewpoints such as Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur.

In a nation fast falling behind in education and appropriate technical training for the kind of innovation needed to spur economic vitality, the vast amount of educational resources and open-source materials that are both cheap and widely available seems like a welcome idea to spark innovation and entrepreneurship. Anderson’s pitch falls along these lines.

Anderson seems to be something of an extension of some of the principles New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman set forth in various articles and his last book That Used to Be Us. Many interviews with Friedman are available where talks about the vast number of people across the country and the world who just ‘didn’t get the memo’ that things are bad. They are in their garages innovating, building, creating and experimenting. My impressions of Maker Faire on a macro level align with this. What I saw is lots of people who are inventing, creating and attempting to innovate and add another touch that is a new concept our time which is there is very little talk of intellectual property protection. This could cut both ways but for now seems good while the so called ‘Maker Revolution’ is in its relative infancy.

Going back to the concept of The Long Tail for a second, I am going to paraphrase a bit and say that the basic thesis was that the democratization of the tools for content creation is good for the marketplace. It really stems beyond just content but for simplicity thats where Anderson starts and that in many ways is where the consequences of Web 2.0 began. As I said earlier I am about 75% on board with this. Mainly because I think that there is now an almost an unquantifiable number of people creating content. However much of it is not very good and creates a lot of noise making it very difficult for great ideas to often surface. Anderson is continuing the theory into an evolution that brings the basic framework to the world of manufacturing. The optimistic side of me really does want to believe that this could be the beginning of millions of new entrepreneurs making products that they can easily take to market. Even beyond that the amount of young kids with their parents leads me to think about the potential of millions of young kids around the world knowing computer programming and circuit design before they even graduate high school. The potential for really great innovation and problem solving is expansive to a point that its at this point almost incomprehensible.

The type of DIY, open sourced and low cost solutions that have evolved into innovations such as the multitude of 3D printers is a great example of the potential for shaping the cost-production curve. However, this is where I begin to question things and feel the need to embrace the inspiring feelings of what I am seeing at Maker Faire with a bit of skepticism.

As much as there were many people who are trying to tackle larger problems of energy, sustainability and other macro issues of the like, I felt like I was seeing a lot of gadgets and kits that seemed to be very much along the line of a futuristic model train convention. Now I’m not trying to make a complete judgement as its really premature. But as with the revolution of ‘the long tail’, this new maker revolution could also result in the vast majority of the aggregate output years down the road could result in a very high volume of useless gadgets and DIY home automation controllers and not enough real solutions. The potential for this being a real revolution is there but I do wonder if this is a ‘second go’ at the benefit of the long tail maybe it is time to have a serious discussion about also devising some sort of system of guidance. I personally am not even totally sure what that means other than I feel as if the Maker Revolution should not abandon the authoritative knowledge of what have always traditionally and classically been known as the ‘experts’. Anderson’s “Long Tail” somewhat is a theology that embraces the abandonment of the ‘experts’. Andrew Keen’s work, which in a way is an answer to this is a polar opposite that believes that there is a due that should be still paid to the ‘experts’. Maybe there are people who are a generation before the current generation embracing the democratization of engineering that may have a different macro view of how to shape the potential to really create larger benefit. I do feel that there should still be a place for those in the engineering world who’s knowledge was acquired in more traditional places, where the rules of experimentation and research may have been more rigorous than that of the garage and the internet.

I’m looking forward to reading Anderson’s book. His discussion albeit brief was fascinating and most definitely an inspiring view of what is to come. It was a great way to start my day walking around. I spent the majority of my time in the Maker Shed and around the Arduino tent. Having myself begun to rekindle my own interests in circuit design and programming I walked home with a kit and have already started getting into just going through the basic 1-2-3’s of circuit design and prototyping. Its my own experience having to confine myself to relatively simple and fun projects for the sake of learning only is what brings me the optimism about the potential of Maker Culture.

The larger question that I ask myself, and what I was in a way seeking at Maker Faire was the voice that could guide the application once learning meets a level of mastery. I would easily admit that trying to get from building electronic musical instruments (which is what I personally am starting with, as it is a passion and hobby) to a place where I could one day apply a level of mastery to get outside of the hobby box is not something I would be able to do on my own. The voice of more traditional experts in the field of engineering seems to be a little dampened by the vastness and loudness of the hobby culture.

Anderson poses a pretty optimistic view of the potential that Maker Culture can have on the economy, both nationally and globally. It is a combination of overwhelming and inspiring. I just can’t help but feel that there are some voices from the discussion that aren’t present yet. But its still very early.