The Material Revolution (book review)
Title :- The Material Revolution
By :- Tom Forester (editor)
Published :- Verso, London, New York (2002) Hard back (380 pages).
Outline :- This is a collection of papers and articles by various authors at slightly different times, simply thrown together with a small forward on each chapter and a list of references. The book is compiled about 1985 with articles in the 1981 – 84 range. It seems this book was published to take advantage at the time of public interest in the new fields of computers, fiber optics, etc. There is some general repetition. The book is also aimed at the implied stock boom that by the year 2000 we will all be driving cars with motors made of advanced ceramics etc. From that aspect it provides a good view of the gap between optimistic predictions and achieved reality. We may very well find parallels in today’s hype about biotechnology, or new battery stocks.
There are several papers that show the new material the new material developments interacting with market forces, and emphasize the difficulty (technical & economical) of turning laboratory inventions into production, and the aspect of sales, market share, competitive products etc. is bought out nicely in one paper that looks at the recent history of tin. Going from expansion into the new market of soldered soft drink cans, then eventually loose out against cheaper new technology of seamless aluminum cans and plastic bottles.
The Chapter 15 – “How critical are critical materials ?” by Joel P. Clark and others gives a balanced view of the Americans keeping critical materials stockpiled in case of war or trade blockages, and how this overview permeated foreign policy. He concludes there is no real need for such stockpiles.
From my geological background I found Chapter 13 interesting excerpt – “The Real Challenge in Materials Engineering” by Thomas W. Eager – “the development of new materials became a recognizable science near the end of the nineteenth century after British geologist Henry Clifton Sorby discovered that he could see the crystalline structure of steel by polishing the surface and etching it with acid. The acid selectively wore away certain parts of the structure so that the structure as a whole became more distinct when viewed through a microscope. After repeating this procedure with steels of different chemistry and heat treatments, Sorby and others were able to correlate the structure of each steel with its mechanical properties”.
Chapter 4 – Materials in History and Society by Melvin Kranzburg & Cyril Stanly Smith.” To those engaged in materials production and fabrication, it may be disconcerting to realize that for a fair fraction of human history their activities have been viewed with suspicion and down right distaste by social thinkers and by the general public. The ancient Greek philosophers, who set the tomn for many of the attitudes still prevalent through western civilization, regarded those involved in the production of material goods as being less worthy that agriculturists and others who did not perform such mundane tasks. Gerrk mythology provided a bases for this distain; the Greek gods were viewed as idealistic models of physical perfection; the only flawed immortal was the patron god of the metal worker, Hephasestuts, whos lameness made him the butt of jokes among his Olympian colleagues (But he got along well with Aphrodite, another producer!). Throughout ancient society the most menial tasks, especially those of mining and metallurgy, were left to slaves. Hence the common social attitude of antiquity, persisting to this day in some intellectual circles, was to look down upon those who worked with their hands. Xenophon stated the case in this fashion – What are called the mechanical arts carry a social stigma and are rightly dishonored in our cities. For these arts damage the bodies of those who work at them or who act as overseers, by compelling them to a sedentary life and to an indoor life, and in some cases, to spend the whole day by the fire. This physical degeneration results also in deterioration of the soul. Furthermore the workers in these trades have not got the time to perform of friendship or citizenship. Consequently they are looked upon as bad friends and bad patriots, and in some cities, especially the war like ones, it is not legal for citizens to ply a mechanical trade. The ancients appreciated material goods, but they did not think highly of those who actually produced them. In his life,–of Marcellus, Plutarch delivered this critical judgment; – For it does not necessarily follow that, if the work delights you with grace, the one who wrought it is worthy of esteem. The current apprehension concerning dangers to the environment from materials production might result in material scientists and engineers being regarded with similar suspicion today.