Who are you and what cloud did you float down from?....:) Very well put. Yes a system to do this in an organized fashion would be valuable.

The Dawg

@viper6277 I think you might be slightly underestimating the size and complexity of our industrial economy and just how many different things are actually necessary for anything remotely like our lifestyle.  For instance, to pick on one particular technology lets look at the idea of Machining.  Not only to you need the machine, but you have to have the actual tool (what is called the bit in a drill).  There are many different types of tools, and numerous sizes, and different materials...  and while you can simplify to a degree you will still probably want several dozen tools in order to make effective use of the machine.  Then you are going to need parallels and t-nuts and all of the other little bits a pieces that are used to hold the workpiece to the table.  And you are probably going to need to construct some specialized jigs eventually and those should be counted as part of the tool.  And you might need coolant if you are going to machine certain materials at any reasonable rate.  I'm not an experienced machinist so I'm probably leaving some things out, but just the machine tool could actually represent a hundred or more unique items, not to mention any of the specialized components that go into it...  and this is assuming you're using a CNC machine tool.  If you're going back to the old fashioned days of manual machining you're going to need rotary tables, and numerous jigs and fixtures, and exotic add-ons that let you cut a helix...  Its rapidly ballooning in complexity.

Aneiren & Jason-- good posts there.  I have had fun following everyone and seeing how different ideas and expectations play into what they expect of OSE.  Just the other day at work we were discussing how 25% of the product of the semiconducter gets scrapped because of pollutants smaller than human hairs.  The context of the conversation was about valves that need to have a surface finish less than 16 micros.  That is way beyond the average person or community, but necessary for any sort of modern tech.

To give credit where it is properly due, the second point was actually brought up by Jason.  I must say that the forums here have been refreshingly different from others I've dealt with in the past.  This feels much more like a genuinely collaborative experience, rather than a virtual shouting match.

Reading those sorts of books we probably a formative experience we share.

The whole OSE idea is entirely dependent on extrinsic sources of value. It is only one of many ideas inadvertently imported from mainstream society. This idea and many others need to be reexamined and the system needs to be adjusted to incorporate the changes.

It makes me wonder how many people understand and fully appreciate the fact that technology (particularly abstraction layers) embody and impose the designer's philosophical ideas in the real world. In some systems (like subways and airports) the designer can elicit specific responses and cause seemingly independent agents to all behave in the same way. While there are usually good reasons for this sort of manipulation, like making evacuations easier, they are stand alone systems that don't necessarily integrate and if done wrong can cause terrible consequences.

We are going to be developing the same sorts of technology, so perhaps we should try to make sure the assumptions and logic of the devices is consistent throughout the community?

I agree entirely that tools shape the actions, abilities and ideas of their users.  There is the classic adage, "If you have a really nice hammer, then you assume most problems can be solved by a hammer."  This is true in all areas media ecologists are quick to point out that not only is communication itself is shaped by the tools (text, chat, blog, book, face-to-face, etc) but those tools actually shape the thoughts.  Unfortunately, there is no provable connection between 'thought-communication-mediums' and success.

I think that with enough people with sticks and maybe some others with bags of catnip, something similar to herding cats could accomplished.

Only partially joking, I have given it additional thought and I think fire might be a useful herding tool also.  I suppose most of this particular discussion would rely upon defining 'herding'.

I've given some thought in recent years to how the society that I nominally live in shapes my wants, desires, etc.  To a certain degree, we (my wife and I) are attempting to re-define what it means to be well off.  To start with, we reject acquisitive definitions tied to money, spacious homes, fancy cars, etc.  Instead, our definition is focused on reliable access to the things that really matter:  food, water, and clean air.  To that we add privacy, good friends, a supportive community, and access to information/knowledge/education.

To some extent, "access" is equated to having enough money to buy things.  While I do make a decent living slinging bits around, I am concerned about the trends in food production in our country and the rest of the world.  As such, my wife and I are working towards being food sufficient, while also trying to avoid subsistence farming.  Some of that comes from permaculture ideas like food forests, perennial vegetable gardens, etc.  Some of it means developing the infrastructure and tools that simplify food production (discerning people will see how OSE might fit into that picture).

Food is just the start, however.  Energy independence is a bit further down the road, but in our plans.  Again, I have high hopes that some of the GVCS projects can be personally applied.

The point I'm wandering about here is that we all have the power to define what happiness means to us.  We can choose to ignore marketing attempts, propaganda, and the pressures of a capitalist society (to some extent).  It does take a certain amount of courage, though.  To most people (especially city folks), I'm just a hick grubbing in the dirt in the back woods of New York living in a 50 year old single wide trailer and driving a pick-up truck (ok, I admit that my other car is a Hyundai).  When people (especially colleagues) hint that I might be a bit crazy, I just laugh.  They don't know the wonder of gazing at a star-filled sky in a country night.  They won't smell the lilacs as they bloom.  They might taste a really good tomato, but they will pay six times as much for it as I do.

Well aneiren, yes, the same constraints of food production apply: whether a post-green-revolution factory farm that is destructive to the environment, or mom&pop organic endeavor that is more friendly but much less productive, you need hectares upon hectares of fertile land.  The same will be true of OSE farming at first.  But projecting out into a (near) future scenario, the emergent solution to the population problem could be the bootstrapped OSE technology stack giving way to hydroponics, vertical farming, ocean farming, and other more flexible food-production modes.  While these may still be somewhat exotic for OSE to tackle right now, they are economically viable and could be a part of the GVCS 500 if not the GVCS 250.  Include a few more exotics into the equation, and you could envision an partially/fully automated hydroponic farm-in-a-box (with it's own power generation facilities from solar and wind) that basically just spits out produce.  We learn enough from the GVCS 50 to expand to the exotics down the line.

There is no arguing with 6 billion people, so clearly there are challenges to scaling up the OSE model.  Still, one thing at a time.  There is a lot to be learned in building a local economy for 200 people  Both the Venus Project and Solari's Arcosancti project had population density in mind. Both are thinking about how to integrate local production of food, tools, and goods on a local scale - yet with much higher population densities.

@aneiren 



I first want to say that your June 2nd post gave me more insight into what you were trying to make a point of in the original post ..:



"My suggestion: find existing mature technologies and identify what makes

them unsuitable and try to fix those problems before we try to make
some of the more exotic projects."



I understand better now...and in the grand scheme of things, as you described (June 4th)...then yes I totally agree.. I also agree that spreading out into 200 people communities is probably not feasible ...( where would we keep all the animals )



I must say this however, while I believe your intentions are great, ( in the discussion of our needs as people, and the systems put in place to manufacture resources, and transport them, our energy needs, and environmental issues ) Maybe my idea of the purpose of the GVCS maybe different from yours... I have been looking at this project...as more of a short term solution (50-100 years) ...where by as a community of engineers we could provide the rest of the world with a standard model of tools, by which they can use to help themselves.



Is it not better to provide people with the the means to help themselves then to consistently provide aid ?



I see people in a far away land, building and then using the tools to provide for their growing village / town...instead of the modern countries constantly sending them food, water and shelter. That is my short term idea of the implementation of the GVCS.



Now on a "Grand Scale"....yes...we can look at the systems that are in place, by which our societies operate and keep us, fed, and housed, and in good social standing. But as you stated in your June 2nd post...it is "philosophical"...



I do understand you better though, and for the most part, I agree...you brought up a good point (June 4th) ... "the sci-fi answer of colonizing another planet and unloading excess population there"



Is that not the path we are on ? ...searching for and finding ice on mars was all about making it a habitable place, making fuel for the return mission, water and oxygen to build an outpost. ( http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28may_marsice/ )


I do believe our future is in space, and not just because we are running out of space here...but for the survival of our species.



Here is a scenario for you... a year from now telescopes spot an asteroid which will strike the earth in 100 years...with no doubt, killing everything...so what will happen the next day...the financial systems will collapse, and everyone will be set in a panic. But after the the reality sets in,... will it not be the cause of every living human being to devote every waking second to building space ships to get the hell out of dodge. I think so.



I think the alternative is space, no doubt in my mind about that, that is not to say, we cannot live on the planet in a system that is more environmentally friendly, where we consume less resource as a people.



We can all hope that one day energy will not be a problem, maybe this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus ) will solve the worlds energy needs one day, ....harmful CO2 emissions will be a thing of the past, and economies will be based on the research of getting more people to space.

@mjn

A quick look at this "200 people village"....are we talking about 50 families ? ...2 Parents, 2 kids (no pets)...or are we talking about 200 adults ? ...in 20 years 200 adults could potentially make 300 babies ...give or take...now your village is looking like a small town !... another 20 years and you are at double that...1000 or so people. Lot of mouths to feed, soon enough !...

It's almost 1 am, and as tired as my eyes are...it is still exciting to read all your posts...great stuff guys.

Yes I agree we are not at the point of planetary colonization, but the tools that will need to be developed and the skills that will be needed are highly specialized. If the OSE were widely adopted, could the resulting society put a man on the moon? Technological know-how does gradually disappear if not used and I worry that the OSE as a short term solution could prevent us from being able to create a long term solution. In other words, if we don't start by thinking in deep time, why would out children not emulate our pragmatic short term perspective? Do as we say, not as we did? Gasoline use was a short term pragmatic solution, but once the problem was "fixed" nobody wanted to do any more work. It takes a crisis to force us to change, and then you're letting the problem control you, rather than controlling the problem.

"Technological know-how does gradually disappear if not used and I worry
that the OSE as a short term solution could prevent us from being able
to create a long term solution."

---

A good bit
of expertise used in say, the Apollo Project is already gone.  The
problem you mention is already happening, so I doubt the OSE will do
much to cause more trouble.  Some of it can be preserved, but you'll
either have to wait, or spend effort on other projects to make sure that
the expertise is preserved.

As far as this goes with the OSE, I
wouldn't worry the OSE community over it.  There are projects to build
open source rocket engines and such, and they have funding.  Let them
work on the rockets, and make sure we can provide the mills, lathes,
forklifts, and other items needed to build the rockets, or build the
underlying infrastructure.

OSE, I'd imagine, should be able to
take a community to, and keep it at, a 50s or 60s level of technology. 
Other efforts like my fabber would take us beyond that.  Specialized
goals, like building a rocket to go to the moon, and the "solar village
construction set" to build a community there, would be on that next
level.  Star trekkin' ships would be beyond even that. :)