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

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Paul,

yes indeed, there is a world of difference between automating some research
steps, and obsoleting human research and meaning-making altogether ..

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> Michel-
>
> I agree with most of your points and concerns here. :-)
>
> Some tangentially related points.
>
> Even within subspecialities, it can be hard to keep up on all the
> exponentially emerging technologies out there right now. It is way harder
> for a generalist to know what is possible and ongoing in a field. So, we are
> all working from a disadvantage on what is available now.
>
> And, there are some issues where there may be active disinformation (like
> anti-solar FUD by the fossil fuel and nuclear industries).
>
> And now for some extended comments on this trend for automating research
> (as well as changing the nature how it is dose in other ways):
>
> There is a robot that does its own research, in the sense that is asks the
> questions within a limited domain, as opposed to the easier task of just
> answering questions that Nathan pointed to.  You're right the system that
> Nathan cites (one from IBM answering Jeapordy trivia questions) is not
> putting scientists is much danger. :-)  But, this other system has the
> potential to make at least some post-docs nervous, perhaps, in the sense
> that it amplifies what just one scientist do:
> "Video: A Robot That Conducts Its Own Research"
>
> http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-04/video-robot-conducts-its-own-research
> "I've always said that most of what I did as a biology research technician
> would someday be carried out by a robot or well-trained monkey. Most lab
> work involves tasks just begging for a robotic hand: repetitive, technical,
> and exceptionally boring. Some (very well-funded) labs have robots that can
> perform repetitive physical jobs, like screening gazillions of chemicals for
> ones that will be medically useful. But this new robot can do the fun part
> of science, too -- the thinking. Meet Adam, the first robot that has
> independently brought a little nugget of experimental knowledge to the
> world. Adam thought up a hypothesis, tested in the real world, analyzed the
> data, and then, of course, did it all over again, many, many times."
>
> As with the destruction of the low end manufacturing industry in the USA
> and offshoring more and more stuff to China, when you remove the on ramps or
> first steps at the low end of something (gradually increasing in what you
> replace, like China has gone from cheap toys to all sorts of gadgetry now,
> same as Japan did decades earlier), there is less of a chance for as many
> new people to learn and move into an industry. This robot above does what
> post-docs I knew were doing in the 1990s for most of their day. So, it
> essentially is removing the first rungs of the scientist career ladder in an
> area. Science is supposed to be more than rote stuff, but in practice, the
> way academia is set up as a pecking order, that's the way it is for most
> early career researchers.
>
> Now, I think that is a good thing in general to automate such work, because
> those biochemicals can be nasty, and post-docs are routinely exploited as
> cheap labor in the biology field. But, is it better to be exploited as well
> as get cancer in twenty years, or is it better to be unemployed with huge
> student loans you can not repay? These sorts of robots are potentially a big
> issue that will more and more affect biotech research. They may mean less
> and less first step opportunities or any employment of many people getting
> biology-related PhDs, considering there is already a glut of them relative
> to the opportunities.
>
> Computer software and simulation by itself has the same potential, with
> computers looking at lots of simulated possibilities. In that sense, senior
> engineers are also being amplified while at the same time junior engineers
> are replaced to an extent. Again, that is good in one sense, but bad in
> another in a scarcity oriented society where you are either employed or
> destitute.
>
> Now, one may point to lots of counter examples, but it seems there is the
> beginning of a trend here.  The real issue is, if you have a fixed amount of
> money as a researcher, how much do you want to spend on people and how much
> on machines (robots or fancy computers)? That has always been an issue, but
> as the machines get more capable, the balance may be shifting to more
> technology per researcher. So, a robot like this might not remove the
> "Principal Investigator" anytime soon, but it might obsolete much of the
> supporting PhD staff. That would be a good thing to remove the drudgery if
> there was not essentially a limited supply of funds.
>
> By the way, here is why the academic pyramid scheme has failed already,
> even without the robots which just make all this even worse from the
> point-of-view of the would-be researcher starting out:
>  "The Big Crunch"
>  http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html<http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Edg/crunch_art.html>
>
> So, there is stuff going on, but again, it is not to the point where
> researchers are all being replaced today. But clearly, they are starting to
> be under pressure. And that is sad, because many people want to do research
> and never get the chance. And researchers often don't cost much money to
> feed (although equipment and lab space can add up in some areas). It is sad
> if our society can not accommodate everyone that wants to make a research
> contribution.
>
> The more general issue is that while everything you say is right about
> being clear on issues of imagination, dream, and reality, one does need to
> be clear on trends, too. :-) And as with that "big crunch" essay above
> written by the Vice Provost of Caltech, sometimes trends are not obvious to
> look at until many years after you are living in the implications of them
> (in that case, it was the end of most academic growth in the 1970s for the
> USA while production of PhDs in vast quantities continued, a fact that
> thirty years later academia still refuses to acknowledge or deal with). Even
> ten years ago, it was known the "half-life" of a science PhD was less than a
> decade:
>  "Careers close to critical mass"
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=107362&sectioncode=26
> "What does a scientist's career have in common with a radioactive element
> like tritium? They both have a half-life that is measured in years, not
> decades. In the case of tritium, it has a half-life of just over 12 years,
> but the "career half-life" of the typical biomedical scientist may be only
> half as long. The half-life of tritium is how long it takes before 50 per
> cent of the atoms have decomposed, but in the case of a group of scientists,
> their career half-life is how long it takes before half of them have left
> the profession, which may be as little as six years. Lawyers and doctors, on
> the other hand, can generally look forward to a career that lasts until
> retirement."
>
> So, add automation to that situation, and we may well be seeing the end of
> entire areas of research in academia done by PhDs and post-docs, at least in
> some areas of biochemistry, given the machines are cheaper and they have not
> yet unionized.
>
> And, I'd point out, the sciences were considered the *good* and *safe*
> PhDs:
>  "Wanted: Really Smart Suckers: Grad school provides exciting new road to
> poverty"
>  http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-04-20/news/wanted-really-smart-suckers/
> "Here's an exciting career opportunity you won't see in the classified ads.
> For the first six to 10 years, it pays less than $20,000 and demands
> superhuman levels of commitment in a Dickensian environment. Forget about
> marriage, a mortgage, or even Thanksgiving dinners, as the focus of your
> entire life narrows to the production, to exacting specifications, of a
> 300-page document less than a dozen people will read. Then it's time for
> advancement: Apply to 50 far-flung, undesirable locations, with a 30 to 40
> percent chance of being offered any position at all. You may end up living
> 100 miles from your spouse and commuting to three different work locations a
> week. You may end up $50,000 in debt, with no health insurance, feeding your
> kids with food stamps. If you are the luckiest out of every five entrants,
> you may win the profession's ultimate prize: A comfortable middle-class job,
> for the rest of your life, with summers off. Welcome to the world of the
> humanities Ph.D. student, 2004, where promises mean little and revolt is in
> the air. In the past week, Columbia's graduate teaching assistants went on
> strike and temporary, or adjunct, faculty at New York University narrowly
> avoided one. Columbia's Graduate Student Employees United seeks recognition,
> over the administration's appeals, of a two-year-old vote that would make it
> the second officially recognized union at a private university. NYU's
> adjuncts, who won their union in 2002, reached an eleventh-hour agreement
> for health care and office space, among other amenities. Grad students have
> always resigned themselves to relative poverty in anticipation of a cushy,
> tenured payoff. But in the past decade, the rules of the game have changed.
> Budget pressures have spurred universities' increasing dependence on
> so-called "casual labor," which damages both the working conditions of
> graduate students and their job prospects. Over half of the classroom time
> at major universities is now logged by non-tenure-track teachers, both
> graduate teaching assistants—known as TAs—and adjuncts. At community
> colleges, part-timers make up 60 percent of the faculties."
>
> Again, computers have the potential to automate the humanities PhD
> student's work as well. I say "work" in the sense of what PhDs are generally
> paid to do as research assistants, teaching assistants, and lab assistants,
> not "work" as in what they love to do in their own original research for a
> PhD thesis or whatever. So, computers make it easier for existing
> professorts to grade assignments, search for references, write letters,
> check for plagiarism, and so on, thus eliminating the need for most of the
> jobs that humanities PhDs have been paid to do (not to mention many academic
> secretaries). Obviously, I feel it is wonderful that a humanities PhD
> student talks about things like literature with undergrads, discusses the
> meanings in life and all that, and does original research -- but in an age
> of tightening budgets and a glut of people with PhDs and lots of computers,
> there is pressure to cut what can be cut, and grad students are historically
> the weakest players. Not to mention other pressures on them:
>  http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
>
> I predict we see more and more automation in those humanities areas, since
> computers are getting better and better at analyzing rote text. Example of
> just the beginning of replacing humanities PhDs:
>  "Professor Develops Essay Grading Software"
>
> http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2005/05/09/professor-develops-essay-grading-software
> "Ed Brent, University of Missouri professor of sociology invested six years
> into developing Qualrus, using the last two years to test it on his
> students. Brent said the program is sophisticated enough to analyze sentence
> and paragraph structure and is able to judge the flow or arguments and
> ideas. Keywords and concepts are pre-entered by the teacher. Students can
> upload their papers on the Internet and receive instant feedback and scores.
> Numeric scores are based on whether the writer addressed the most important
> elements of the assignment. The idea is to save teachers the tedium of
> reading scores of essays on the same topic. According to Brent, he himself
> has shaved off 200 hours of paper grading."
>
> Note, I'm not saying you can replace a humanities professor with that. But
> you can replace the first career steps to become a humanities professor with
> that, and the net effect may ultimately be the same.
>
> Already faculty are graying. In the same way automation lets old Japanese
> keep from importing young foreigners to help them, graying faculty may turn
> to automation instead of new hires to hang on to their jobs:
> "Graying of US academia stirs debate: Some cite brilliance; others see lost
> opportunity in hiring"
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/27/graying_of_us_academia_stirs_debate/
> """
> This year, 9.2 percent of tenured professors in Harvard's Faculty of Arts
> and Sciences are 70 or older, compared with none in 1992. Other universities
> have seen jumps in the percentage of older professors, although the actual
> number remains small on many campuses. The graying of university faculty has
> stirred vigorous debate. Some in higher education, including Glauber's
> students, say many older professors are brilliant researchers and riveting
> teachers with plenty to offer. But some academic leaders say the abundance
> of older professors is plugging the pipeline, making it harder to hire young
> faculty members and bring fresh ideas into labs and the classroom. At the
> worst, they worry that the perseverance of older professors will crowd the
> young out of scholarly professions altogether. ... The slower pace of
> retirements in the sciences is one of the reasons that young scientists are
> spending more years in low-paid postdoctoral fellowships and the average age
> for a scientist to get his or her first major research grants from the
> National Institutes of Health has risen from 37 to 42 in the last 25 years.
> """
>
> So, in a way, this is even a "transhumanism" issue, as old professors with
> tenure and relative affluence are turning themselves into transhumans with
> computers, Borg-like collaborative social networks, hearing aids, glasses,
> and insulin shots, and with all that augmenting technology they are crowding
> out the young and poor would-be professors who just can't compete. :-)
>
> Add robots that do their own research and paper-grading computer AI
> software programs into this mix, things that will mainly be only available
> to the old and relatively wealthy professors who are already established,
> and who knows what will be happening soon to grad students? :-)
>
> So, all that is one thing driving the Pro-Am revolution:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_amateurs
>
> As well as the "Blue Collar" scholar:
>
> http://unconventionalideas.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/blue-collar-independent-scholar/
> "People with scholarly interests should take a long hard look at the
> possibility of a blue collar career. On the surface this may sound
> ludicrous, but I’ve found blue collar work actually enables me to pursue
> intellectual interests far more than any white collar job I ever had. Here’s
> how it all happened:.. "
>
> Or, perhaps, in my case, doing child-care part of the time for my child
> while also writing stuff and programming free software, I guess that makes
> me a "Pink Collar" scholar. :-)
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink-collar_worker
> At least for a time.
>
> Note: I think there are plenty of resources on our planet to allow anyone
> of any age to be a researcher or professor, so I don't think the solution is
> mandatory retirement. It's a basic income, rethinking education vs.
> schooling, massively increased R&D spending by government, and things like
> that, IMHO.
>
> So, there are actually several trends that are changing the nature of
> academic research as we know it. :-) And peer-to-peer, in part bypassing the
> academic journal system (like this mailing list), is fueling some of them.
> As is automation. :-)
>
> Anyway, this is all not to disagree with your general point. You are right
> to call for clarity about what categories ideas and information fall into.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>> 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/20090916/e4c33431/attachment-0001.html>