Open Source Ecology Forums

ARGHaynes

I was thinking today. One of the things OSE strives towards is decentralization of power. Functionally, to what degree can this be carried out? For example, a degree of centralization is necessary for very-high tech production and certain institutions require a more centralized approach. Unless human nature changes drastically, we will need a military. Heck, even OSE has a very centralized power/resource structure. Of course, I do believe that we need to reverse the trend of the proprietary information.

mjn

Centralization, to me, is really a resource question. If the cost of building, feeding, maintaining, and running an Induction Furnace (for example) is very high, then the costs need to be shared in order to achieve it's capability. One of the things that OSE calls into question is the notion of scarcity. If something is expensive to build or run, then it is likely to be a scarce resource. Now it may very well be that some capabilities will continue to be scarce. Perhaps not an Induction Furnace, but likely a microelectronics fabrication lab capable of sub-micron integrated circuit development. Still, I think it falls to us to question these notions of scarcity. What if it were possible that every village in the outback could have it's own Induction Furnace - (why not?) an IC Fab unit?

Perhaps something we should consider is that concepts like decentralization is a sliding scale. How many high energy particle accelerators does the world really need? Some, certainly, and they will be highly centralized. This makes sense (to me) since it is a very specialized tool that (let's face it) most villages just won't need (at least, for now).

Power generation (which I am assuming is the sense of the word you used in "decentralization of power" above) is classically a centralized capability. National or regional at best, unusual at the city or town level, and unheard of at the village or farm level -- until recently, that is. Technology is changing and OSE is pushing it along by challenging the old assumptions about centralization.

I personally define decentralized as something I can use or make work on my own farm (which supports exactly two people: me and my wife). This is an even smaller scale than the village. It may, in fact, be too small a scale. After all, I can't operate everything offered by the GVCS at once (at least, as currently defined). Still, it is the scale I operate at currently, though this may change.

So what do you think, Mr. Haynes? How do we facilitate the decentralization trend?

- Mark Norton

ARGHaynes

I hopped online last night and spent a while trying to think of an adequate response, but failed, I think I have one presently.

I think that in keeping with the historical pattern, the next level of societal evolution will occur spontaneously throughout humanity, but like all the previous levels, while it appears to bust magically onto the scene there will be seeds sown throughout that germinate and grow. The initial movement will be the result of slow spreading growth.

While that will facilitate a "mega-decentralization", I think that it can happen all over the place on a smaller scale. I think two of the limiting factors will be accessibility and sustainability. By this, I mean that people will have to be able to enter into the new communities without massive sacrifice, I know there are people that will disagree with that, but I will argue that community building is an area where it is important to speak from experience. Secondly, it is my opinion that the success of projects like this will require a strong work ethic. Anyone with offspring will attest that once you assume the responsibilities of a family, there is no such thing as a three hour work day, no matter how technologically advanced we become.

While I think that emerging international markets will have an interesting effect on the power structure, I realize that our setup is designed (primarily through loans/investing/stocks) to keep the rich rich, so not too much change will happen. Regardless, I think we can vote with our money as we go day-to-day, if we calculate the greater impact of each dollar we spend, then we will be slowly shaping the world.

mjn

> the next level of societal evolution will occur spontaneously
throughout humanity

Yes, I suspect so. I also wonder if it is already happening, but unfolding at a pace that makes it difficult to see right now. Consider the grown of small farms, the localvore meme, obsession with survivalism, heck- even the zombie apocalypse.

> I think that it can happen all over the place on a smaller scale

Which is what OSE needs to focus on.

> I think two of the limiting factors will be accessibility and
sustainability. By this, I mean that people will have to be able to
enter into the new communities without massive sacrifice

Which is what my "Karmic Responsibility" proposal is about. Jump start OSE villages and set the expectation that they will help start three or more others. Leverage our growing capital to give others the boost they need to join the fun.

> it is my opinion that the success of projects like this will require a
strong work ethic

I completely agree with that and sadly, it is a scare commodity these days. Still, we can set up a series of social filters:

1. Willingness to respond to an OSE invitation
2. Joining the OSE community (Team Culturing, etc.)
3. Expressing a desire to become part of an OSE village
4. Getting trained in OSE techniques
5. Contributing what resources you have to make an OSE village happen (money, time, labor, etc).

If we make these be explicit tests, it should weed out the tire-kickers, complainers, and wistful dreamers. While it's still a bit early to make plans for viral-village-building, now is the time to explore the concepts and what it would take.

- Mark

Dawg

I'm reading the above and I can't help but get a sense of excitement. I could go on and on but I won't....:)

One thing I'd like to say is this idea of filtering may be harder to implement that you think. Also, the last thing you want is to discourage people in any way. Just because someone has the wrong kind of attitude now, doesn't mean they can't be persuaded to change their perspective. Perhaps what is important here is to lead by example rather than creating some sort of complex filter.

But yes, the core of a group needs to be tight and well aligned with common goals. This is certain.

The Dawg

ARGHaynes

I suppose it will become a matter of considering regional development, getting funding, a location and willing teachers/students. Once we developed several different groups, we could begin slowly creating communities.

mjn

Each OSE village will need to work closely together as a team. Building such a team is a difficult task. The chemistry has to be good, people need to be patient and have at least some social skill, and their needs to be guidance to bring them together. There are techniques for doing such, but it takes time.

The filtering function is necessary, I think. Some of it will be there regardless of what we do. It helps weed out the people who are not fully committed to making it happen, but even then doesn't guarantee that we'll end up with a group that can work together. We may need to design and train special village kick-off leaders who work with the leader who eventually takes over.

- Mark

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Tagged

Open Source Ecology Forums