In my experience, the people most obsessed with disruptive technology, the robot future, AI and revolutionary technology are small bore liberals. These are the sorts who pass themselves off “nerds” having grown up on science and comic books. In reality they have never had much interest in any of that and they are usually innumerate and devoid of science.

It’s why my bullshit detector pegs at eleven whenever I hear someone prattling on about some new thing that will change the world. Inventions that changed the world were almost always accidents. In most cases the inventor did not know he was changing the world. Heck, in most cases there was not an inventor. Things just evolved to an inflection point and then took off like magic.

On the other side of the coin, most “revolutionary inventions” turn out to be Segways. Fifteen years ago Dean Kamen said he was about to change the world. Then he unveiled his two-wheel scooter that only managed to change our airports, letting fat cops on double time get from one doughnut stand to the next.

I’ve always thought 3-D printing was headed down the same path. There will be a narrow use of the technology, but otherwise it will be an expensive toy for hobbyists and weirdos. Exactly no one has ever sat around dreaming of the day they could manufacture their own household products. We used to do that. It sucked. That’s why we had the Industrial Revolution.

My skepticism seems to have been right.

The 3D-printing industry “is choking off its own revolution” with a combination of toy-like machines, over-priced materials and legal wrangles according to Francis Bitonti, the designer behind the printed dress for Dita von Teese (+ interview).

“3D printing has just become incredibly stagnant,” said New York-based Bitonti, who feels that many of the machines on the market are little more than “tinker toys”.

“A toy is not going to create the next industrial revolution,” he said. “The biggest barrier that we have in the studio is just scaling products because the price points are so high.”

Printing materials are too expensive, he added: “You’re paying 65 dollars for a kilogram spool of PLA, which is crappy plastic, and you can’t compete with injection moulding or any other type of production.”

Speaking to Dezeen in New York last month, Bitonti said that the 3D-printing industry needed to open up its intellectual property so that the design and manufacturing community could help drive forward improvements.

“They’ve got to open up,” he said. “It’s not that they need to open up all of their IP, but it’s a lot of things. You see a lot of tinker toys because they’re treating it like a copy machine. I think they need to change their mind and understand that it’s a manufacturing technology.”

He added: “The industry is just completely choked by intellectual property law right now.”

Maybe. It’s also possible that there’s not a lot of benefit to having a 3-D printer. If you are hobbyist who tinkers with things that have a lot of small plastic parts, maybe it makes sense for you. If you are producing volume, then this is a waste of money as you can get the work done better and cheaper by professionals.

The thing is, most people are not very creative or imaginative. Yeah, a creative mind with design skills can create magic on a 3-D printer. The other 99.99% of humans lack the creativity and design skills to create anything. We learned this with the PC. Even today, most people spend their time playing games on them, not doing productive work.

I could not leave this without my other criticism, which is that 3-D printing is whittling for the lazy. If you believe there was a huge barrier keeping a hungry populace out of the whittling game, then 3-D printing makes sense. If you really have an urge to make small things from big things, buy a pen knife and some wood. Put the $5K to better use.