Let's see how it looks in twenty years of comparable environment. You have the burden of proof here. Prove that no 3d printed material is as good as original in longevity and durability.
The blanket '3D printing solves every problem and has no drawbacks whatsoever!' mindset is equally weird and ten times more ignorant. Who the hell said that?
You clearly haven't been in charge of R&D products where some dipshit committee decides, 'oh hey, my kid got a 3D printer for Christmas, let's just start making parts using that process!" and then tells you that's how parts get made these days, despite your protests and logic. So you spend six months designing parts, re-designing parts to accommodate shear lines, dimensional incongruities, supply-chain QC issues, and performing endless failure mode analysis, so the committee can decide 'oh crap, it's not apples to apples like the 3D printer salesman told us it was, and we spent way more on R&D than we ever would have spent if we'd just used what works!' even though that's what engineering told them in the first place. You are making up scenarios and fantasies about fictitious companies and committees. It's a little delusional.