[p2p-research] thinking about leapfrogging

[M. Fioretti]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 15:55:44 PM -0500, Kevin Carson wrote:
> On 10/5/08, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:

> > when I said in my article that things like your CEB are 19th
> > century technology I obviously didn't mean that your work is less
> > valuable or less useful
> > ...
> > Do local-p2p-all-the-way *technical* alternatives to nationwide
> > power grids and telecom networks or huge semiconductor fabs
> > exist? Don't you lose a lot on real quality of life giving those
> > things up just because they're not p2p?
> 
> Classifying technology by century is meaningless, IMO.

Same here. Human reproductive technology is million years old, but
that doesn't make it obsolete, does it now? Calling the CEB "19th
century technology" was only a mean to point out that there are two
centuries of technology developments between brick making and
microprocessor making, so it's a false start to think that if you can
do one at home you can also do the other. It doesn't matter who came
first, only that one process is immensely more complex than the other,
until somebody does come up with a totally different but working way
to make microprocessors.

> And you seem to be equating quality of life to the nature of inputs
> consumed rather than functional outputs.

You seem to not have read carefully
http://p2pfoundation.net/Thoughts_on_P2P_production_and_deployment_of_physical_objects

Quoting myself from there:

> Think to affordable and open access to quality education, culture in
> all its forms, communication or advanced health care. Think to
> services like weather forecasts reliable enough to minimize human
> casualties or food waste.

I judge the quality of life provided by an autonomous society model or
lifestyle (also) from how it guarantees all these **functional
outputs**, not from *what* it consumes or in which quantities.

> The basic requirements of shelter and food can be met most
> efficiently by adapting "19th century technology," through new
> configurations and techniques.

I **never** said the contrary, so all this effort is not necessary. I
say that to live well you need also need things or services that
cannot be manufactured or managed on a local, small, P2P scale only.

> A lot of it depends on what you mean by the "grid."  Large scale power
> consumption, which may be necessary in some cases, is not equivalent
> to a grid.  Even the largest industrial projects, arguably, can be
> most efficiently powered by generators scaled to the actual needs of
> the facility itself, at the point of consumption.

but I'm not the one who dislikes such scenarios. You don't have to
tell this to me, I could have written this myself. Your example proves
my point. It is just another case where, IMO, the small farm or
community of idealists simply won't be able to be self-dependent and
live decently in the long term. Not until they recreate, with many
other communities some large organization which, at least in
principle, is exactly what they were trying to escape and leave behind
in the first place.
 
My point is simply that, if there is no way to become completely free
of some centralization and/or and mass production and live decently
(and frankly, I have read no proofs against this yet, just lots of
nice dreams and wishes), it may make much sense not to try to get rid
of it altogether (*) or at least it would be more intellectually
honest to acknowledge it. The only reason why I engaged in the
discussion which led to the article cited above was exactly reading
claims of "we're almost there yet, and that's a sustainable lifestyle"

(*) the FOSS community loves to express this concept as "those who try
to get alternatives to Unix are condemned to reinvent it poorly"

> Why generate power at a distant site and transmit it over a grid,
> when the site of consumption is sufficient to support its own power
> plant at maximum efficient scale?  The most efficient approach is to
> tailor power output to consumption needs at the point of consumption

as long as those consumption needs are fairly constant over time,
yes. I consider a grid necessary because I usually prefer to think
more in terms of little-steps evolution of large, existing communities
than to small groups starting from scratch (or leapfrogging). In any
case it's irrelevant, my basic point is whether one can live decently
(as defined above) with a feudal organization and lifestyle, that is
without any permanent relationship, interdependence or coordination
with people living more than a few kilometers from one's doorstep.
 
> I don't think anyone here has argued that large-scale production, as
> such (whatever that may mean in concrete terms) will be made
> completely obsolete.

I wrote that paper exactly because I found arguments like those in my
inbox.

> But I don't think anyone denies, in principle, that they will exist
> to a certain extent.

as I said at the beginning, please (re)read my paper.

I'm not complaining, of course, as it was a stimulating discussion and
all its consequences so far, including this message of yours, seem to
confirm my position.

Marco

-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84