Open Source Ecology Forums

Woodssj

Hello all,
    I am a recovering Museum Interpreter of 15 years. After having worked with history for a long time, having a degree therein, and working with historic technologies on a daily basis for a decade and a half, I have a few questions I would like to address to all of you so I can better understand the project here and how it works.
     First, What is the difference between "Open Source" and what historians call "Cultural Diffusion?" Is it simply a digital model for the spread of technologies, knowledge and behaviors between groups, like Cultural Diffusion, or something more complex? From what I can see and understand here, this a regression back to the more ancient model of technological diffusion, but adapted to modern tools. Am I on the right track?
     Second, Why are historical methods and technologies being ignored? Half of the problems one could have possibly run across were solved about five hundred years ago or more, and the rest are electronics which haven't been around long enough. The Steam Engine, Dairy Milker, Windmill, Oven, and half a dozen others were solved by the year 1900.

Woodssj

Sorry, ran out of space. Continuing:
     The early models of these machines were designed to be user serviceable, and the patents have expired long ago. This would save a huge amount of R&D budget investment as well as time, and allow more time and resources for the stuff which has no precedent at all, or all within patent restrictions. The US Archives and Patent Office could be a very valuable Resource for you.
     Lastly, since I'm a geek, and have abused m'self in the name of history far too much over the course of my career: What's wrong with your Shoes? By shoes, I really just mean the really old-school methods used in the museums I worked at. They get the job done, keep plenty of people employed and are entirely free of any restriction at all, legal or moral. The only potential problem is speed, but then you just get more peasants in your village, or call a corvee.
    Please to keep me informed.

Rabert

First, What is the difference between "Open Source" and what historians call "Cultural Diffusion?"

Open Source is a means to achieve and support cultural diffusion. While the patent system mainly comes to the same result over time, it is intended to slow cultural diffusion of technology down, where the open source approach speeds it up.

Second, Why are historical methods and technologies being ignored?

They are not ignored, there is simply no time and effort invested in it, because it is not necessary. First, because they are already freely available, but mainly, because they are mostly simply outdated. They are inefficient, labor intensive, costly, bulky or otherwise not competetive enough to be worth to be invested in when taking into account the performance parameters of its modern counterparts. You could transport bricks with a wagon pulled by oxen, which you could get without large industrial support quite easily, but a truck is so much more efficient. If efficiency is no essential criteria to utilize technology, you can make use of 19th century technology, of course, but you do not need an initiative like OSE to make this technology available.

I really just mean the really old-school methods used in the museums I worked at.

There is a reason, why they are in museums today. There might be a few exceptions, but generally, with today's technology we cannot do things only faster, but also in better quality, with less ressources, labour and/or energy, and quite often we couldn't do things at all without it. Try to build a computer with 19th century technology, for instance.

On the other hand, your are right. When we just want to live a decent live, without illnesses, hunger or safety/security threats, we probably would be better of if we would come back to sociatal production processes and goals of pre-industrial 17th and 18th century. A subsistance economy replacing the capitalistic economy would set people free from the pressure of wanting to have everything at once, and preserve the ressources of our planet for the coming generations instead of burning them all up within the next few decades or centuries.

So, what you suggested, truly hits the core of things. Do we need to be perfect on the cost of depleting our planet and taking away everything from our grandchildrens grandchildren? I say no. We really should go back to the economic system of the pre-industrial area and use 19th century technology, where it is sufficient to fullfill our needs. And keep and improve 21st century technology, where it is needed to keep people safe, ressources protected and providing the edge on quality and efficiency where it really makes a difference.

Ned_Ludd

Hello Woodssj

You touch upon a subject that is close to my heart. I might refer you to something I wrote on the theme quite recently: http://c4ss.org/content/14577

I am not sure if cultural diffusion is quite the same thing as vernacularization. I rather suspect that they are two aspects of the same thing; or two distinctions concerning the same thing. I often speak of vernacularization because it emphasizes the political-economic aspects of technological knowledge and, specifically, the manipulation thereof. I think the project of open-source development ought to be to anticipate vernacularization, and to devise solutions specifically for vernacularization, i.e. to design future traditions, as it were. As such it is necessary to understand processes and mechanisms of cultural diffusion, vernacularization, and tradition - many in the movement don't.

In the article linked to above I wrote, 'It is certain that the view of technological development as a simple,
inevitable linear progression is in the interests of the established State-corporate industrial machine. It is in its interest not only that the prevalent state of technology is constantly and rapidly changing but also that the broad trend of the change is fairly well established in a popular vision of “the Future”.' The idea of technological progress and, specifically, the form that technological progress takes is a political-economic construct that could not serve a certain agenda better if it had been constructed deliberately, by conspiracy, rather than organically. This is not to deny the reality or the influence of technological change, but it does question the desirability of any given growth, as Rabert also says.

The historical context is especially important, specifically as regards the interrelation of technological development and political and economic aspects. It is not so much that technological development has been a mechanism for political and economic change as the other way around. The factors which determined which techniques were developed and which discarded have always been political and economic ones. That means that there have been courses not pursued: part of the task is to speculate "what if?" And if indeed our technological course has brought us close to ecological collapse, there is much to be said for turning around and going back to the last turning. (The thing to understand is that the metaphor of a road is precisely that: a metaphor. The passage of time is likewise no more than the passage of time. Technolological development, never mind arbitrary technological musical chairs, is not time-travel! This, too, has a metaphysic proper to it.)

The task is to devise technologies appropriate to the desired political-economic model (I favour a decentralized mutualist/anarchist/left-libertarian/distributist one) rather than the other way around.

Woodssj

Interesting. Glad to see I was at least on the right track with that.

As to historical tools and hand tools, as well as the metaphorical shoe above, I have always thought more in a problem-resource-solution pattern. Simply stated, what is the problem, what do I have and how can I solve it with what I have. Admittedly, this came from never having just the right tools, but in the ancient world it is how you lived and invented new tools and techniques.

As to the historic tech for modern use, Don't underestimate it. Having 3/4ths of your design done already on the steam engine by looking at a patent from the 1850s is worth more than the 100 man-hours you might put into redesigning it from scratch. Also, there is the Parsons Turbine, which might work well in some uses. It's worth looking over as you go after these projects, since it could save time and resources.

As always though, the problems you face will always dictate the technology you develop from what you have. That's how it's always been, and most likely will always be.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ned_Ludd

"As always though, the problems you face will always dictate the technology you develop from what you have. That's how it's always been, and most likely will always be." True enough, but beware of oversimplification here. The questions of who it is that is facing the problems, and why those problems and not other problems are the problems being faced, are not trivial!

Matt_Maier

First, What is the difference between "Open Source" and what historians call "Cultural Diffusion?"

To understand open source you have to start with free software. Originally, computers ran pretty much custom code, so the developers delivered the source code and the user just compiled it themselves. As hardware became standardized, and software began to work on more than one machine, the developers stopped releasing their source code. Some people reacted to this proprietary approach by declaring it a moral issue; they decided that all software should be free. That is where GNU/Linux came from and why it has such a restrictive copyleft license. As much as the free software movement accomplished, their priorities are fundamentally incompatible with proprietary software (business). Open source emerged as a compromise between the two. Open source allows for all different variations of copyleft, from non to strong. Basically, both proprietary and free were focused on cost, but open source compromises by focusing on solutions to problems and letting cost work itself out afterwards. These three approaches are unique in that they are defined entirely by their respective licenses. Business, to maintain their proprietary intellectual property, invented copyright. Interestingly, free and open source use that exact same copyright to create precisely the opposite effect. Free and open source licenses use the legal power of copyright to force other people to keep the intellectual property open and available to all. It is a highly legalistic structure that is not the same as mere sharing or diffusion.

Second, Why are historical methods and technologies being ignored? Half of the problems one could have possibly run across were solved about five hundred years ago or more, and the rest are electronics which haven't been around long enough. The Steam Engine, Dairy Milker, Windmill, Oven, and half a dozen others were solved by the year 1900.

I don't think they're being ignored. I think people are reattacking the problem with the benefit of modern technology. Also, there are only so many hours in the day and only so many volunteer developers. Personally, I don't want to sift through thousands of patents, but maybe someone else will. Nothing's stopping them.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Open Source Ecology Forums