[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

Tue Jun 9 11:33:20 CEST 2009

Dear Nathan,

If you don't mind, I will reproduce your contribution on our blog,

In the meantime, I do think that the end of scarcity hypothesis is wildly
optimistic.

Below, 2 crucial contributions to the energy trap, which every abundance
proponent should answer and address

After presentation of a good summary by John Robb, see in particular the in
depth treatment of the issue by Jeff Vail, in 4 installments,

Michel

<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/from-unnovation-to-innovation/2009/06/09>

The Energy Trap <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-energy-trap/2009/06/14>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]Michel Bauwens
14th June 2009

 A core change to our fundamental economic and social model that substitutes
physically moving products globally to virtually moving information about
products. Where virtual presence is substituted for actual visitation and
nothing is made that isn’t bought.

Like any shift in fundamental substrates, this a process of creative
annihilation (as opposed to the much milder form of Schumpeter’s creative
destruction we see in free markets).

The following is a very important issue that is usually not understood by
those who have a naive belief in technological progress: *there is a serious
problem of timing in the substitution of depleted fossil fuels by renewable
energy alternatives.*

The problem is well explained by John
Robb<http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/05/energy-moores-law-and-substitution.html>
.

*1. The problem*

*“One of the long term trends that now seems inexorable is that fossil fuels
(stored solar) will be expensive from here on out (see my earlier attempt at
this topic with “Crossing the Energy Chasm”). Demand will continuously
outstrip our increasingly depleted and difficult to obtain sources of
supply. Prices will rise when demand increases, and when prices rise too
much, demand will be destroyed (with demand destruction starting first at
the low end, as we saw with sub-prime borrowers in the US). In other words,
every time we attempt to grow economically within the current model, we will
bump into energy that is too expensive to support that growth.*

*However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Since we live in an
adaptive system (much less adaptive than it could be due to deep structural
and conceptual problems) alternatives will be found. The common assumption
is that these alternatives will be in the form of direct substitutes, or new
forms of inexpensive energy (presumably, fossil alternatives or solar power)
that can power the existing model of the global economy. That’s likely a
false assumption. *

*Why? *

*The substitutes for energy that are available, aren’t available in the
quantity demanded nor at a price point necessary to serve as direct
substitutes for existing sources at their historical (low) prices. Most
particularly, solar power (the only source with the theoretically achievable
scale to serve as a true substitute for fossil fuels) won’t be inexpensive
enough to serve as a true substitute for decades.*

*2. The issue with solar*

*The reason for this is that the Moore’s law equivalent for solar power
appears to be a halving underlying costs every 10.5 years (not two, like we
see in the computing industry). Moore’s law has been powering productivity
improvements in other industries (like biotech) at rates approaching the
underlying rate of semiconductor improvement. This due to the high levels of
information processing in those industries (directly addressable by
improvement in computational capacity) relative to the level of improvements
needed to advance the materials used. In contrast, manufacturing more
efficient solar cells reverses that ratio: less information manipulation in
the design and much more in terms of fundamental improvements in capacity of
the materials utilized (new breakthroughs). Therefore, the rate of
improvement in solar efficiency occurs much slower, even when it uses much
of the same equipment used by the semi-conductor industry.*

*As a result, on the current doubling rate of improvement, we can’t expect
to reach grid equivalence at the current prices in any reasonable scenario
(sooner than 20 years). In contrast, grid equivalence at higher prices, say
10 times current prices (of electricity, which is already a premium energy
source), may be achievable in the 2025 time frame. Sure, we can accelerate
the share of solar energy production through the use of government subsidies
and mandates (as we are currently doing), but that only shifts costs and
doesn’t scale (particularly given the red ink induced pallor of our
finances). *

*So, what does this mean? *

*We will likely adapt, but not in the way anticipated. The most likely
adaption will come in the form of a substrate shift. A shift in the
underlying model of the global economy to one that is much, much more energy
efficient.*

*It’s a global judo move that flips everything on its back. A core change to
our fundamental economic and social model that substitutes physically moving
products globally to virtually moving information about products. Where
virtual presence is substituted for actual visitation and nothing is made
that isn’t bought.*

*In conclusion:*

It’s a place where you telecommute to work if you sell goods and services
globally. Where all production is increasingly and inexorably local, from
food to energy to consumer products. It’s a place were physical travel is a
premium event, reserved only for those objects and occurrences that are the
most valuable. In short, localization into resilient communities (the only
term I know to describe it) drives orders of magnitude improvement (10x to
100x) in the use of energy, time, space, matter, and information over the
old model of globalization.

This <http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48990> is a must read additional
but pessimistic read to the above.

*Jeff Vail* has a series of investigative entries on this issue as well:

Renewable energy requires an up-front investment of energy, and this may
dramatically impact our ability to transition to a renewable-energy economy
because the transition effort will initially exacerbate the very energy
scarcity that is its impetus.

Read his contributions here:
intro<http://www.jeffvail.net/2009/05/renewables-hump-introduction.html>,
2 <http://www.jeffvail.net/2009/05/renewables-hump-digging-out-of-hole.html>,
3 <http://www.jeffvail.net/2009/06/renewables-hump-3-target.html>,
4<http://www.jeffvail.net/2009/06/renewables-hump-4-eroei-issues.html>

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com>
> Date: 2009/6/9
> Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls
> To: openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Labor overall has lost scarce value, unable to earn enough to purchase
> enough scarce goods  to continue increases in scarcity generation as
> expressed by state centralized currency. Yet, because without viable network
> facilitators to help write adequate instructions to produce, locate, and
> retrieve freely available resources, scarcity conditions will persist until
> these areas are better addressed by members of communities that care to
> develop them.
>
> So a question, a major pitfall that's occupied that attention-span, and one
> I believe has a compelling answer while writing this message is: "How are
> abundant goods traded to attain scarce goods?" One answer is pretty obvious:
> "abundant goods cannot be traded for scarce goods--HOWEVER!--abundant goods
> produced in a region can be transferred in exchange (or not) for another
> region's abundantly produced goods. Without these links both items would
> otherwise remain scarce goods. This solution creates "a distributed network
> of abundance" that make otherwise scarce conditions in each, abundant."
> (!!!!) This answer extends the economic theory of 'comparative advantage'
> for a post-scarcity context, where its more efficient for one region to
> produce one type of good than another, while the other region produces a
> different good to make the exchange between these two areas of more common
> value than if both goods were produced in the same area.
>
> What anyone in the world has yet to explain very well is how scarcity fails
> or why the scarce economy (known to most as "the economy") has collapsed.
> Richard Wolff's attractively simple 'Capitalism Hits the Fan' thesis is
> probably the closest I've read to explaining the failure of the economic
> system itself. I've determined there is no single point that determines the
> problem, but rather a variety of factors that contributed to that present
> downturn. I look forward to getting with those of you that like to address
> these matters by placing each notable link failure into a package called the
> "Tragedy of the Scarcity Commons." Hi Joseph! ;)
>
> I'm making an as yet uncommonly held assumption here: that value was
> developing in a non-monetizable commons for sometime, whether marked by
> lower wages in foreign countries to produce or open source methods that
> however funded required less money on average. A few accelerations during
> the 1970s in the U.S. (and other countries with the same model?) are most
> visually identified in the history of financial debt. I suspect the
> acceleration of debt is also followed by the rate of outsourcing to
> peripheral saturated labor markets? This debt growth will continue and
> remain enforced for as long as scarcity based exchanges are unable to
> maintain scarce conditions more or less equally among participants. The most
> glaring forthcoming issue with maintaining a 'scarce-exchange' model is when
> observing the increases in aging populations in Industrial countries rapidly
> unable to participate in the already saturated labor markets. Japan is the
> hottest target.
>
> From what I understand, the majority of members on this list believe the
> growth of scarcity generally is over. When this is accepted, a new general
> problem arises: the issue of resource management when conditions are not
> both mostly scarce or mostly abundant, beginning in areas that matter most.
> The answer to the "semi-scarce problem" as expressed of having abundantly
> produced goods in one area but not others is solved by transferring abundant
> goods to other parts of the world in exchange (or not) for other abundantly
> produced goods.
>
> We need to rapidly manage affairs within the local or global community
> level or risk fatally violent measures taken by the state and its scarcity
> driven supporters. We all take a risk if we do not persist in establishing
> our open cafes, hackerspaces, or a place for community space generally to
> create or strengthen local and global community ties essential to our well
> being. If the state and its corporate sponsors are able to affectively
> influence the harm of others for 'scarce-dependent' gain, violence will
> persist without an observably practiced alternative.
>
> Its the members of communities that form and develop hackerspaces and other
> community efforts and the work groups that continue to develop programs like
> Google Wave (more than "lion's share of the code," please!) and Wolfram
> Alpha (I insist an open source!) as vital tools to form an aggregated
> communications media to come that filters out and embodies the best of our
> applied intelligence where it really matters. We all must more than hope and
> insist by making while the existing scarcity model crumbles by placing an
> abundant link (based on your interest area) before the scarce link fails. If
> an abundance link is not bridged before the scarcity link fails, difficulty
> increases to produce that needed abundant link.
>
>
> --
> Nathan Cravens
> Effortless Economy
>
> OPEN SOURCE >> AGGREGATE >> INTEREST >> DISCUSSION >> DESIGN OUTLINE >>
> DESIGN >> FABRICATE PROTOTYPE >> OPTIMIZE
>
> Open Systems Design for Peer Producing Anything
> http://www.appropedia.org/Open_Systems_Design_for_Peer_Producing_Anything
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<openmanufacturing%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
>
>
> --
> Employment profile:
> http://www.espach.salford.ac.uk/politics/staff/moore.php
>
> Capital and Class special issue 2009 on Peer to Peer Production:
>
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/parallel-visions-of-peer-production/2009/03/13
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/cognitive-capitalism
>
> Manchester Film Cooperative: http://www.manchesterfilm.coop/
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090609/ff2917c4/attachment-0001.html>