[p2p-research] [globalvillages] mass production and p2p production, was ecovillage and communities

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Nathan,

Let me try to explain the difference in approach in the following way.

We are both inspired by an ideal, for you it's post-scarcity, for me it's a
peer to peer world. We both find evidence of trends that are going in that
direction.

But we have to be very very careful in not taking our dreams for realities.
People have dreamed of salvation, enlightenment, and socialism for
generations, and it gave us the Catholic Church, abusive spiritual guru's,
and the totalitarian Soviet Union ...

The other thing is to be very careful about the distinctions between what is
already happening (lots of p2p trends, some robotic production, etc...),
what are projects, what are potentialities, etc...

A good example is your reference to IBM, this is a project, unrealized, yet
you make the conclusions that researchers will disappear.

This might be just a sleight of hand for you, and perhaps be unproblematic
in transhumanist circles, but for most people, this has the effect of
destroying any credibility.

When I meet open hardware people, who know how hard it is to make anything
work, any statements like that would discredit the whole body of work that
we have been building up, based on as realistic assessments of what has been
achieved so far, and where it could be going ..

So ideals are fine, they inspire; science fiction is fine, it makes you
think; projects are fine, they may be realized ... but confusing the
different levels of imagination, dream, and actual practice, is politically
counterproductive ...

Take Marcin for example, a very ambitious project, but at the same time,
there is no hint in Marcin's discourse that his ambitious program is
anywhere near achievement, he is simply building the blocks one step at a
time, at great personal cost of  himself and his collaborators ... this
builds credibility. If Marcin would reason as if all he wants is already
achieved, he could not muster the same sympathy.

Michel

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com> wrote:

> *gasp* I haven't rambled this much in sometime! ;p
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Chris Watkins <
> chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Nathan,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 21:52, Global Palestine <
>> globalpalestine at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I view any form of exchange trade tyrannous as I hope any post-scarcity
>>> theorist might)
>>>
>>
>> I view any restriction on my right to trade as tyrannous. (Other than
>> restrictions or levies to compensate for externalities, or to provide public
>> goods, i.e. reasonable taxes).
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for addressing this Chris. I will use this window to describe in
> more detail my views on exchange trade and technological determinism.
>
> Right. Banning trade will not solve the problem. I never said we should.
> Removing the need for trade, however, is best. I'm not going to shush about
> that no matter what investments you or I may have or how fiercely you might
> label me incorrectly as a Marxist. In 2050 when the European elderly
> population is greater than those able to care for themselves; even if money
> where to exist; there's no amount of it that could motivate enough people to
> take care of them. This needs to be understood before the crisis happens
> before ignorance leads to the cruelty geriatric genocide by means of
> neglect! If we do not care for our elderly or our children either group will
> surely want to destroy everyone else in some way; we're better than that;
> we're smarter than that!
> So put the appropriate political exchange trade economies in practice to
> address the existing production methods (from 'mostly': mass production >>
> to >> adaptive digitally/robotically assisted distributed production (which
> will be fully automated without (much?) workforce) >> to >>
> digitally/robotically personal production enabling the freedom to return to
> simple hand tool craft production if you so please) and distribution
> channels or dependencies until full personal autonomy (craft or personal
> production) is achieved.
>
> I enjoy acting like a fool, (to see how foolish or playful you might act in
> kind) but it would be much too foolish for me to state any specific time for
> when we fashion our technology into enabling anyone to do as they reasonably
> please, moreso at least that we can reasonably do as we wish today. We can
> know better when we have the right strategy that we know in theory will
> produce the outcome and if we have the people to meet those requirements. I
> am now working on that document with those I know or know someone else who
> knows how to accomplish these tasks.
> To better express the link between exchange trade and production
> progression, here's a working model to debate and elaborate:
>
> Urban. 50% of the global population. Toward post-scarcity with exchange
> trade as needed, but reduced with each phase.
>
>    - we know what mass production picture looks like, factory workers are
>    obsolete and we must admit this and information workers are being replaced
>    with software. Not enough people are able to afford the goods so capital
>    collapses whether demand exists for the  >> product or outcome
>    - flexible mass production >> a few techs to ensure designs created by
>    the user match the robots used to assemble a variety >> with few jobs in
>    high paying positions, but mostly many jobs that do not pay enough,
>    populations with this production formula are issued a basic income to pay
>    for goods if they cannot be made personally for free >> product or outcome
>
> Post-scarcity is achieved
>
>    - Digitally/robotically personal production enabling the freedom to
>    return to simple hand tool craft production if you so please >> product or
>    outcome
>
> The assumptions I've stated mean I am a technological advocate, but I do
> not agree that technology in itself will fruit the production phases I
> presented without guidance or self determination. The outcomes presented
> require the tact of social science integrated with the study in applied
> technology and will require an interest in how things work and an desire to
> make the things that work to secure the paths I have presented. I am doing
> my best to become a person of such sorts, but I admit I still have a
> hangover from the consumer culture that surfaced me. I may well be
> considered insane; as my beliefs do not reflect or address with much
> interest the present "reality," but the 'reality' I would rather live
> whether practices can meet these requirements or not. I'm stubborn and more
> of us need to be in this regard.
>
> I am a technological determinist in the sense that based on the information
> presented by Kurzweil in 'The Singularity is Near', it presents various
> technology developments, showing that when our tools are accessed by
> computers or communications channels, people can see them and then work to
> develop them further, and in so doing, the 'deposit' remains and grows
> exponentially, and that this can be shown on a variety of charts as
> happening before for sometime, and we call the human deposit that is made,
> 'technology'. If it happened before for hundreds of years along with a
> variety of others things we can expect many of these things to continue to
> develop exponentially regardless of our individual behaviors. I understand
> the pitfalls of extrapolation as I will address.
>
> I rarely, if at all, separate what is human from what is technology, as I
> view technology as a human artifact; a series of methods produced to extend
> or secure a human function.
>
> For those not familier or unable to access Kurzweil's book, Moravec in 1998
> made a similar extrapolation in 'When will computer hardware match the human
> brain'. This essay simply demonstrates that as the years go by, it is
> becoming more possible than the day before to have the outcomes I have
> proposed here and elsewhere.
> http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm
>
> We have the ability to do a variety of things people do well with
> distributed computer networks, so we have the computational capacity beyond
> a single human brain already. Its just a matter of determining the problem
> and figuring what artifact, ideally adaptive, that might address it and
> problems the many other problems that come after it. So solving problems
> just creates more problems as we'll have an exchange trade economy
> indefinintely because of this? I'd like to see the evidence for
> that argument; regardless I don't buy it; because people are poor when
> there's no reason for it for one, but here's another reason to watch your
> future market value dissapear:
>
> When IBM demonstrates DeepQA this will mean the end of the researcher in
> short order as a profession, given IBM shares the code or an insider hacks
> it or someone figures it out.
> http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/
>
> A new job title is likely to surface once the researcher is no more: to
> that of creator or content generator. That's what this guy says anyway. ;p
>
> Tomoaki Kasuga "Bringing a robot to every home"
>
> http://dailymotion.virgilio.it/video/xa0264_tomoaki-kasuga-bringing-a-robot-to_tech?from=rss
>
>
> Kurzweil curiously (perhaps because he has billions of dollars invested?)
> adds the exchange trade economy into his exponential figures, (but these
> elegant mathematics dismiss most people having less income to that of an
> average income, which fails to observe an economic tipping point we're
> seeing, when ownership exceeds earnership or income becomes too disparaged
> to function properly after financial gadgetry fails) which holds when the
> Industrial Revolution as its called surfaced, suggesting we will have an
> ever growing exchange trade economy. I reject that notion, but I have yet
> the appropriate theoretical backing to better ground my claims, unless Paul
> Fernhout has in his wonderfully expansive source references. Regardless, I
> know its possible because of nomadic societies living well without exchange
> trade and from reflecting deeply within myself to that which surfaces
> emotion and seeing that it is a most reasonable moral pursuit. Many people I
> have spoken in admitting they would prefer not to have any compromise for
> living, tells me there are enough people here on earth to pursue the ability
> to care for themselves without compromising others, call it alternative
> currency if you like, it remains a compromise, no matter how ethically or
> evenly you frame it. A market is a compromise. No matter how "fair" or
> "even" or "equal" the exchange is, judgement is made toward a value of a
> thing before it is addressed; and worse; at least two people must decide
> that it is of one measurable value. The measurement of value destroys it in
> my view, becasue to measure value is to destroy what generated its worth to
> begin with, and cannot possibly account for what produced the 'thing' of
> value. This is one argument that demonstrates why I am so strongly for basic
> income or gift economies or freedom without markets because it lets the
> individual decide what to do and what is valuable. However innefficient or
> selfish that may be; these rough edges can be soften by technological
> implements that ensure free human behavior serves the needs or wants of
> others, intended or not. We're seeing this surface with 'recommendation
> engines' like Amazon or friend suggestions on Facebook from simple
> 'friend-of-a-friend' algorithms that simply see who's a friend of your
> friend and makes a suggestion for you to befriend them. When this is better
> applied in an 'interest-of-interest', then we can see the people that share
> particular interests like engineering or 3d modeling or robotics and contact
> these people to build that magical technology that will solve many of our
> problems.
>
> (Ahh, but there's always a catch, a cost, a price. . . yes. . . its called
> profit of the sort that cannot be measured and of which we can hardly
> imagine; a profit that will turn our views of children as pests, as many I
> see do to my detriment and anger, into the most brilliant of beings, as they
> use what we build to do far more amazing things that what you may well have
> already damned for yourself, long ago. But of course, we're seeing that
> people can quickly adapt, so I have hope for overgrown children as well.
> That is not to say we will approve of what they do; I suspect that like any
> good parent we will not!)
>
> If I thought the word 'technology' represented a magical thing that will
> soon 'solve all of our problems', I would not be so interested in ensuring
> that our tools nurture individuals and communities. So my concern is
> ensuring the exponential growth of technical developments enable rather than
> destroy people. Many people will likely want to 'destroy' themselves from my
> view, such as manipulate their DNA or replace bodily biologies with 'better'
> artificial replacements to a degree that would make them post-human. Many in
> this group find this unattractive as I do.
> What I find dissapointing is only a few people are expressing on the lists
> I follow try to present full or broader technologically packaged ways toward
> going toward an abundant environment. For one they may fear being viewed as
> a fool for trying, such as on the open manufacturing list where many there
> are tech friendly and savvy. For those on the p2presearch list, I've
> experienced a sentiment of the rejection technology as a viable solution to
> social problems; which I find rather unusual, since we're using a highly
> advanced integrated media to have this very discussion. Perhaps I have
> been criticized (thank you for the criticism, Herbert, as this will help us
> improve our lives in some way) not because you view technology as a bad
> thing, but because I have failed to address how badly technology is used. I
> believe addressing the ills are rhetorical as the ills are clearly expressed
> in every Industrial mass production based civilization today. Just
> acknowledge your feelings reflectively as you behave; and your body will
> tell you what is right and what is wrong: for you.
>
> Without technologies like netbooks and the web life would be worse off. If
> it were not for computers and the web, I'd probably be miserable in
> university class room or miserable teaching in a university classroom for
> lack of knowing anything else better to pursue. That's not to say I think
> universities are awful places, but they are rather depressing, so will need
> to become more flexible for me to have much tolerance for them, as I believe
> any student, especially one (usually the parents) that pays
> such outrageous fees, to follow the 'path of the [compartmentalized] elders'
> insisted today.
>
> It likely required more arms to put food into your mouth than your own.
> This means someone is doing something they much would rather not. That must
> change. Those three final sentences sum up my overall interest in the P2P
> Foundation as a researcher and developer; to help people feed themselves
> without making others hungry. If you think such goals are not appropriate
> for the P2P Foundation, I'd rather not go anywhere else, because I like you
> people too much, because you seem to 'get it' as a whole more than any other
> social collective I've encountered.
>
> My critics (that's good; it means I may be saying something of value!) may
> say that may well have read well, but its not good enough, and that I must
> say more, present more sources, and so on. If this becomes the case, I will
> be encouraged to elaborate, but if not, that means what I have said is good
> enough to work with. I do not think it is in itself, which is why we're
> alive I suppose, but I hope it is at least convincing enough to critique. ;)
>
> I'm pretty confused as to what to call myself as I seem to use a variety of
> disciplines. Until I can think of something better than post-scarcity
> theorist, that 'fool's game' at present, (so I'll accept the title of fool
> as well) as it is greatly dependent on that fuzzy thing we call technology.
> (unless you're interested in the sort of post-scarcity that can be measured
> scientifically, what Paul Fernhout calls pre-scarcity, then you're a
> primitivist, not all that interesting in my opinion, as we know this to
> work, but without all the groovy toys I think and what others believe are
> worth keeping) There is a reason technology is a separate discipline from
> science. . . Technology is difficult today to measure social outcomes, so if
> I'm addressing technology for reasons of personal and community autonomony,
> this may seem to make things even more difficult as the modeler must address
> what devices are needed to solve x and of what quantity and quality. This
> provides an interesting challenge to the systems modeler or post-scarcity
> theorist, but until that is better explored and placed into a coordination
> platform, as to how to model technology in regard to its social effect in a
> way that makes people present their works more transparently, if it is to be
> a thing of use that exists, I will seem rather foolish for making ungrounded
> assumptions based on small scraps of evidence. Paul F. is doing his best to
> present that case; bless him.
>
> Whatever I may lack in precision I hope to make up for in coordinating
> efforts to produce the appropriate product everyone will have an interest
> and no one will want to buy it as they ideally cannot, but they will have
> it, unless they do not want a certain aspect of it. I intend very soon to
> get my hands dirty now that I have some idea of what it is that is
> required.
>
> Daily Me
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Me
>
> This may well be the result if you're really into yourself. ;p We must not
> let these types muck it up for the rest of us by creating technology that
> can ensure those that decide to isolate in an extreme (and in my view,
> unhealthy) way do not destroy the environment around them. These types are
> the most likely to 'destroy themselves' from our human perspective. (again,
> I'm leaving it to you to find the source material to prove that; my
> apologies to the philosophers here)
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


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

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090915/d2cb2f11/attachment-0001.html>