Open Source Ecology Forums

Ecophilosopher

Hi everyone, first post here. I learned about OSE recently and am very excited about the potential implications. Some of my biggest interests are ecological sustainability and social justice. The next phase of human civilization will be a decentralized network of autonomous units which cooperate with each other to maintain complex technology and ecosystems - see John Michael Greer's "ecotechnic society." OSE, if successful, would demonstrate the viability of such a civilization. Not to be overly dramatic, but the future of the human race could well depend on OSE and other projects like it.

One thing I'm curious about, and I'm not sure anyone has an answer to this yet - but what level of technology is theoretically possible with the civilization starter kit? I see plans for a 3D printer, plastic extruder, and circuit board maker, so does this mean that our computing technology can be maintained? What about the LCD monitors that are so ubiquitous these days? Those require rare earth minerals which aren't easily obtained or recycled. I guess we could always back the technology up to CRTs. What sort of "modern comforts" are theoretically possible, assuming that all 50 machines in the civilization starter kit are built?

Matt_Maier

Haha, that's a very good question :-)

At the moment, I see it as more of a goal than a requirement. The GVCS is first and foremost a "from scratch/scrap to something better" tool. Once that process is demonstrated in a diverse array of situations we can worry about air conditioning and TVs.

Personally, I've always defined civilization (technologically at least) as plumbing. When fresh water comes in, and waste water goes out, you've got civilization. It might not be much, but it's fundamentally different from not having civilization. If you still have to move water around in buckets, or go to where the water is, then you don't have civilization. That might seem like a modest standard but it's actually quite impressive when you're starting from scratch/scrap. Pipes and pumps require a significant infrastructure and an organizational ability to plan ahead.

As for everything else, I've never entirely bought the idea that a 200 person village can produce EVERYTHING they need. As you pointed out, some things simply require exotic minerals that won't be present everywhere on Earth. Some places will have weather/environmental factors that preclude certain activities. Whatever. It's a good goal even if we never manage to reach it.

Specifically, the GVCS doesn't yet include enough machines to build anything really complicated. It's just a good starting point. I don't think it's worth worrying about LCD screens for, I dunno, a decade? Probably longer. The kind of infrastructure OSE is open sourcing doesn't change quickly.

Ecophilosopher

LCDs are definitely low on the "hierarchy of needs," I was just using them as an example of a complex technology. There is a way to extract the indium from LCDs using a chemical process; I don't see why processes couldn't be developed for recycling all the rare earths in all our technology.

Needs come first - shelter, food, clothing, etc. After that society can worry about luxuries like LCDs.

Personally, though, I think air conditioning is pretty high on the hierarchy of needs - I live in Texas which would be virtually uninhabitable without AC.

I also think that computers have been a benefit to society and would continue to be very useful in an "open source" society.

I guess what I'm asking is: are these 50 machines enough to build something as complex as say, a computer? If they can build a computer, I imagine they can build just about any household good. The computer is probably the most complicated thing currently in my house and I imagine, in most people's houses.

Matt_Maier

Nope. Not even close. Well...they could build a difference engine.

I think it comes down to a question of what the GVCS should be. My impression is that there are a TON of machines that contribute to modern technology, but only a few of them qualify as "tools that make tools." That's where you have to start. Are we going to get to an open source washing machine eventually? Yes. Is it going to be part of the GVCS? I don't think it should be. A washing machine is great, but it's optional. A tractor is not optional.

There are levels of technology that can't be reached without, say, integrated circuits. The machines to make and use those are a whole 'nother level of complicated. Sure, we can open source them sooner or later, but they'll never be part of the GVCS.

I should back up a step. I don't foresee the whole "isolated, independent village" thing working. I think there will be a few that are totally independent either because of philosophy or geography, but they'll be the exception. I think the biggest impact of OSE's work is going to be gradually replacing the closed source industry/agriculture that the entire world uses. Software like Linux provides an alternative to proprietary software, but it doesn't change anything about how the division of labor works. Specialization and trade will still be pareto optimal. No amount of social justice will ever rewrite those rules.

So, from my POV, it doesn't make sense to try to make the GVCS an all-encompassing technology platform. If you did, no one would ever use the whole thing anyway. I think the GVCS is going to do a lot of good on its own, and then it's going to inspire a whole new way of approaching technology. Ultimately it will be eclipsed by all the independent efforts it inspires. Someone will produce an open source LCD machine, eventually, and it doesn't really matter who.

Ecophilosopher

"tools that make tools." That's where you have to start.

Okay, that answers my question, thanks.

danielravennest

I agree with Matt's thinking. The core need is basic tools that can be used to build more complex things. So a sawmill so you can turn trees into lumber, from which you can make all kinds of things out of wood. A solar furnace so you can make pottery, bricks, and cement to make concrete. A CNC machine (lathe/milling machine) so you can make a variety of metal parts. With those, you have a good start at making a house and a workshop. You will still have to buy a percentage of commercial items, but over time expand your toolkit so you can do more on your own.

Ecophilosopher

"You will still have to buy a percentage of commercial items, but over time expand your toolkit so you can do more on your own."

Or, theoretically, salvage those items from the remains of a collapsed civilization or from the scrap heap of a non-collapsed civilization.

Matt_Maier

A common bit of wisdom is "all things in moderation." Well, there is an exception. Options. Never moderate your options. More options is never bad. Some options are good, lots of options are great, excessive options are greatest. The more options we can provide people with the better the world will be.

TriSimon

Here is what I think "modern" comfort includes:

Electrification.
Machine-derived power (aka mechanical work).
Instant access to hot water.
Instant access to cooking heat.
Prolonged storage of perishable goods.
Instant communication across great distances.
Ability to meet one's needs in less than a full day's work.
Ability to travel with limited effort and protected from the elements.

I am not necessarily suggesting that the items above are "needed" for comfort, nor that this is a complete list, just that these constitute "modern" comforts in my mind. I've certainly lived without some of these and still found my living to be comfortable. My take on modern comfort is mainly based on reduction of toil afforded by tools developed during the industrial revolution. I would also equate "modern" comfort with convenience.

TriSimon

@ecophilosopher Thanks for posting the topic. Great Question! If I can respond to the LCD point: Amory Lovin's suggests defining your end goal and working backwards. If we see the primary purpose of an LCD as display digital information in a graphical format, there are many solutions to this problem. Recycling the constituents of an LCD is likely. Whether the constituents could be formed back into an LCD is beyond the scope of the GVCS. However, the GVCS tools are a lot closer to creating an LCD from scratch than sticks and stones. :-)

DavidIAm

TriSimon - what are ones needs?

dorkmo

i think we'll find not all the materials required for production make it into the final product. like chemicals for etching pcb's dont leave the factory. i imagine lcd's will have multiple chemicals just for processing . ose chemistry hasnt reaaly been explored yet.

Matt_Maier

Hopefully OSE's radical new approach will benefit from people coming forward with ideas that didn't gain any traction under the old paradigm. Maybe someone has an idea for hwo to make LCD displays out of twigs (i dunno) but it's marginally more expensive than the current technology. Well, it would be straight-up ignored. But OSE is looking for fairly different metrics. We probably won't have to invent as much as one would assume because the ideas already exist and just haven't had the right system.

Ecophilosopher

@Trisimon

I like your definition. We can define "modern civilization" as the use of extraneous energy (i.e., machines) as a replacement for human labor.

Now, machines have existed for a very long time, but most of them relied on muscle power as the energy source, so they were not a replacement of human labor.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Open Source Ecology Forums