[p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 12:38:43 CET 2010
yes, that is fine for me!
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>wrote:
> Hi Michel, Martin
>
> @Michel: I understand there needs to be content for the P2P blog... Perhaps
> we could strike a balance, something like : the journal publishes a piece by
> Martin and a response by you and maybe others, which can then be republished
> in installments on the P2P blog. Would that work?
>
> @Martin: Glad you're up for it! We are hoping to go live in January so it
> would be good to be ready then. Articles in the debate section should be
> between 1000-3000 words. I can't focus on specific points right now (though
> Michel's summary below seems a good summary) as I have too many things on my
> plate. Maybe we can discuss more in detail in a week or so, if that is OK.
>
> cheers,
>
> Mathieu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:37 am
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than
> Free Software
> To: p2p research network <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > our blog format is very flexible, and there are not really deadlines,
> the only issue is I have a publication calendar which is pre-scheduled a few
> days in advance, so it may not appear 'immediately' when you send it but on
> average 4-5 days after,
> >
> > a few ideas for your contributions:
> >
> > - your analysis of free software as coopted
> >
> > - your critique of immateriality
> >
> > - the proper place of technology in the emancipation of the most
> exploited
> >
> > other themes are welcome to ...
> >
> > perhaps we could think of a series of four, to be published each
> separate week in January 2011 (earlier is fine)
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:28 AM, j.martin.pedersen <
> m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > That sounds like it cold work! Rushed emails is not really a
>> > constructive format for this kind of discussion,
>> >
>> > Let me know more about what you have in mind, such as: length (word
>> > count), specific points that you liked, deadline..
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > martin
>> >
>> > On 03/12/10 22:56, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
>> > > Hey Martin,
>> > >
>> > > Mathieu here, I'm the editor of a new journal project, critical
>> studies in peer production (http://cspp.oekonux.org/), we have been
>> fine-tuning layout etc for a while, getting ready to launch soon. I really
>> like the points you make below, if you would like to convert them into a
>> short article we could include it into our "debate" section with possibly a
>> response from Michel or whoever feels strongly about the issue?
>> > >
>> > > All best,
>> > >
>> > > Mathieu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: "j.martin.pedersen" <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk>
>> > > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010 8:31 pm
>> > > Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more
>> complicated than Free Software
>> > > To: p2p research network <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>> > > Cc: Beatriz Busaniche <bea at vialibre.org.ar>, Massimo De Angelis <
>> commoning at gmail.com>, Silke Helfrich <Silke.Helfrich at gmx.de>, David
>> Bollier <david at bollier.org>, Jai Sen <jai.sen at cacim.net>
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Michel,
>> > >>
>> > >> You are right to warn about "being stuck in critique" - or in
>> > >> any other
>> > >> rhetoric, whether self-styled or based on established ideology -
>> > >> and I
>> > >> shall be the first to lament conventional, unreflective leftist
>> > >> positions.
>> > >> As the subject line indicates, virtual commons are within free
>> culture
>> > >> commonly, in general, considered in isolation from the
>> > >> materiality that
>> > >> makes them possible and which constitutes one of the fastest growing
>> > >> environmental threats. This is not an ideological point, but a
>> > >> technicalpoint, and it continues to be a hidden aspect of free
>> > >> culture and
>> > >> virtual commons, and will remain hidden until the philosophy and
>> > >> language from within the movements recognise the material
>> > >> dependency and
>> > >> enormous energy consumption that digital commons entail. That
>> > >> was and is
>> > >> all I am saying: do not be in denial.
>> > >>
>> > >> Generally, on a personal note, I proceed from the principle that one
>> > >> should not bother criticising something that one does not care for:
>> > >> critique is an attempt to improve: preguntando caminamos - and the
>> > >> questioning as we walk is of course also of our own footsteps and
>> > >> direction (in fact, when building alternatives there is not much
>> > >> else to
>> > >> question). Else, it would risk ending up like in some western
>> > >> New Age
>> > >> community where everyone is smiling with joy, although they are
>> > >> furiouson the inside, with themselves and with each other - for
>> > >> the more
>> > >> enlightened, the more happy, and so to admit to *not* be happy
>> > >> and *not*
>> > >> on the verge of nirvana would signal a failure. So we smile. In
>> short:
>> > >> denial, repression and the danger of explosion.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't understand what you mean with those who "just don't get
>> > >> it" -
>> > >> for my part I am quite sure that most people understand very
>> > >> easily that
>> > >> energy and hardware don't just drop from the sky, but have to be
>> > >> generated and produced and that this production is
>> > >> environmentally and
>> > >> humanly costly, *if* they are made aware of that - but you seem to
>> > >> suggest that *I* just don't get "it" - "it" being your world
>> > >> view. Well,
>> > >> what is it that I don't get?
>> > >>
>> > >> I have answered in more detail below - hoping that this can become
>> > >> either a constructive exchange, or that we can just leave it
>> > >> here - with
>> > >> a view to clearing up some of the misunderstandings that were
>> > >> reflectedin your responses (to what I was trying to say).
>> > >>
>> > >> On 29/11/10 01:09, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> > >>> hi martin,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> you say "berlin" was allergic to stances directly confronting
>> > >> capital, can
>> > >>> you give some concrete examples?
>> > >>
>> > >> I said we heard it time and again during the conference and in
>> > >> meetings - even in pejorative terms with gestures and with
>> overbearing
>> > >> shrugs. I was actually rather shocked, not so much by the
>> > >> arrogance and
>> > >> superiority of it, as the assumption that such denigrating
>> statements
>> > >> were OK to make and reflected a common(s) sense. This is no
>> > >> place for
>> > >> specifics, as they are personal, - if you managed to _not_
>> > >> notice I am
>> > >> rather surprised - but in some sense it doesn't matter, while in
>> > >> othersit matters a lot:
>> > >>
>> > >> The movements of peasants, landless and indigenous - as well as
>> urban
>> > >> radical movements - I imagine, outnumber the digital commoners; and
>> > >> without land and its resources there can be no cyberspace. After
>> all,
>> > >> half the population is still rural and many urban dwellers rely upon
>> > >> their villages to feed them in the city, as anyone who has ever been
>> > >> doing development work on the frontiers of capitalism will know
>> > >> all too
>> > >> well.
>> > >>
>> > >> Since the expansion of cyberspace threatens the commoners of the
>> land,
>> > >> there needs to be some sort of mutual recognition of the this
>> > >> inter-dependence. Every time the digital commons discourse
>> > >> ignores and
>> > >> denies this material foundation, the problem is consolidated. If
>> > >> you see
>> > >> yourself as a public intellectual, then you must realise - as
>> Lessig,
>> > >> Benkler et al. before you - that you to quite some extent have
>> > >> to take
>> > >> on the responsibility as a central contributor to defining
>> (refining?)
>> > >> the discourse of those who follow. At this stage, the digital
>> commons
>> > >> discourse is saturated with politics that build on the misleading
>> > >> (deliberately misleading! (I will document this on demand))
>> discourse
>> > >> established by the Ivy League leaders who have defined the territory
>> > >> intellectually - and done so in such a manner as to not only pose
>> > >> minimal threat to capital interests, but indeed to be helpful
>> > >> for their
>> > >> expansion.
>> > >>
>> > >> The movements for the defense of commons first had their de
>> > >> facto rights
>> > >> articulated in the Charter of Forests (ca. 1215-1225), and apart
>> from
>> > >> various great uprisings - the last, in this part of the world,
>> during
>> > >> the Spanish Revolution in the 1930s - it has been a slow, but safe
>> > >> decay: from having collective right of access to land for food,
>> > >> fuel and
>> > >> building materials to abstract, individual rights that can be
>> > >> suspendedin a state of emergency, which have become permanent
>> > >> features in the
>> > >> contemporary world.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> one thing worries me though, you say that we should wait "that
>> > >> we are all on
>> > >>> the same page", but surely, that cannot be a reason for
>> > >> inaction, until the
>> > >>> magical moment when that would happen? this stance, waiting
>> > >> for "once we are
>> > >>> all on the same page .. then let us move forward", is a
>> > >> guarantee for
>> > >>> staying in the critical stage, with no movement towards
>> > >> concretely building
>> > >>> the alternatives ...
>> > >>
>> > >> I am not sure why you choose to (mis)understand what I said in
>> > >> this way,
>> > >> but to clarify: You asked me for *specific* answers and I said
>> > >> that I do
>> > >> not have any real answers at this stage. Why not? Because I
>> > >> consider the
>> > >> development of answers, solutions and action plans as
>> > >> necessarily a
>> > >> collective effort that has to come from within the movement(s) -
>> > >> we find
>> > >> the answers as we walk on, asking each other, reflecting
>> > >> critically,avoiding gooey eyed denial - like moths staring into
>> > >> the virtual light.
>> > >> At this stage, my contribution is merely a philosophical
>> > >> questioning of
>> > >> the politics of free culture.
>> > >>
>> > >> When it comes to the way in which digital commons are embedded in
>> > >> natural resource systems and what can be done about it, I said
>> > >> that an
>> > >> important first step is towards *acknowledging* that problem.
>> > >> This means
>> > >> in very simple terms that if you have not acknowledged and
>> > >> recognised a
>> > >> problem, it is going to be difficult to solve it. Everytime the
>> > >> politicsand development of the digital commons rest on the false
>> > >> assumptions of
>> > >> immateriality, the materiality is obscured further.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't have the answers - and I don't think that anyone has The
>> > >> Answers- but if any set of solutions are to be developed from
>> > >> within the
>> > >> digital commons movement with respect to the problematic
>> > >> embedding in
>> > >> and exploitation of natural resources (as carried out by mining and
>> > >> nuclear etc etc.), then that embedding must be faced up to.
>> > >>
>> > >> "On the same page", then, refers to a collective recognition of the
>> > >> problem, which should be seen as a prerequisite to collective
>> > >> solving of
>> > >> the problem. You project ideology and negativity into that
>> > >> proposition -
>> > >> I don't know why - and claim it is critique that is not
>> > >> constructive. I
>> > >> think denial is much less constructive than trying to come to
>> > >> terms with
>> > >> problems.
>> > >>
>> > >> However, without claiming this is an answer, I do regularly visit
>> > >> communities where surfing is limited to a few hours a day,
>> > >> unless there
>> > >> is a particularly strong wind or a lot of sunshine, because they
>> > >> are off
>> > >> the grid. As such, one of the questions that one could ask, as
>> > >> we walk
>> > >> and chew gum and whatever else you like to do, is where are our
>> > >> projectshosted? What could we do to create (non-General Electric
>> > >> patent-based,
>> > >> non-industrial scale) wind powered, communally owned hosting on
>> > >> recycledhardware for digital commons?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> in any case, the pages of the p2p foundation blog are open to
>> > >> any news and
>> > >>> comments about the land issue, non-eurocentric visions of
>> > >> history, and the
>> > >>> material basis of the digital commons,
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes, that is good, and so is this list, and that is why I
>> > >> brought up the
>> > >> point.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> the key for me is to go beyond the stage and stance of
>> > >> critique, that others
>> > >>> "just don't get it", towards actually injecting such
>> > >> perspectives in
>> > >>> concrete discourse, and associated with constructive action,
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't know where you get this from, but if it came from
>> > >> anything I
>> > >> said, let me clarify: I never said that anyone "didn't get it" -
>> > >> I said
>> > >> that as a culture - a cultural norm - the material embedding is not
>> > >> recognised and in a variety of ways even obscured through
>> > >> philosophicalideas and concepts of social organisation that - as
>> > >> the subject line
>> > >> still reads, and which is how this exchange came about - "Non
>> digital
>> > >> commons a lot more complicated than Free Software". This is only
>> true
>> > >> insofar as you see Free Software and other digital commons as
>> > >> having no
>> > >> material base. In fact, they are infinitely more complicated,
>> > >> since they
>> > >> are a techno-virtual layer on top of ecosystems - or, as it were,
>> > >> digital commons require a material, technostructural
>> > >> underpinning. In
>> > >> other words, digital commons need to address their hardware and
>> energy
>> > >> use, as part of their organisational processes and they should have
>> > >> support in doing so. This is not about rejecting digital commons
>> that
>> > >> are impure, but rather about a conscious move away from "impurity".
>> > >> Purity we can leave to the religions, but that does not mean we
>> should
>> > >> deny certain problematic "impurities."
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> I find it hard to imagine that the labour movement would have
>> gotten
>> > >>> anywhere without using print media to the full extent, which
>> > >> is what they
>> > >>> not only did, but was actually there central focus;
>> > >> creating print vehicle
>> > >>> for agitprop was actually the core activity of the
>> > >> revolutionary movements
>> > >>
>> > >> There are many readings of the labour movements - some of which
>> argue
>> > >> very well that social-democracy and later the welfare system
>> > >> spelled the
>> > >> beginning of the end of the working class movements,
>> > >> particularly with
>> > >> respect to local control over local infrastructure. Indeed, the very
>> > >> notion of a "working class" expresses a defeat of commoners of
>> > >> the land
>> > >> and, as noted by Colin Ward, the welfare system, after the
>> > >> crises of the
>> > >> 1930s and in order to rebuild after the war, in many communities in
>> > >> England shifted power from local communities to central
>> > >> government over
>> > >> schools, libraries and so on. If print had helped the labour
>> > >> movements,the centralised curriculum has long since subverted
>> > >> that advantage.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't agree with what seems to be your take on history and I think
>> > >> that the writing of the history of the commoners rendered working
>> > >> classes has only just begun - there is a lot to discuss and I am
>> very
>> > >> wary of anyone claiming to see a full picture of those particular
>> > >> histories with specific reference to the transformation of the
>> > >> field of
>> > >> forces within which they operate.
>> > >>
>> > >> This is a very good place to start, by the way:
>> > >>
>> > >> Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged, London: Allen Lane, 1991,
>> Chapter
>> > >> 11: "Ships and Chips: Technological Repression and the Origin of
>> > >> the Wage."
>> > >>
>> > >> One could also consult the more philosophical:
>> > >>
>> > >> �Social Democracy thought fit to to assign to the working class
>> > >> the role
>> > >> of the redeemer of future generations, in this way cutting the
>> > >> sinews of
>> > >> its greatest strength. This training made the working class
>> > >> forget both
>> > >> its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished
>> > >> by the
>> > >> image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated
>> > >> grandchildren�(Walter Benjamin 1940/1982: 262).
>> > >>
>> > >> Or the radically political (in the words of a critical liberal):
>> > >>
>> > >> �The representative of the working classes, Sorel observed,
>> > >> becomes an
>> > >> excellent bourgeois very easily. The hideous examples are before our
>> > >> eyes � Millerand, Briand, Viviani, the spellbinding demagogue Jean
>> > >> Jaur�s with his easily acquired popularity. Sorel had once hoped for
>> > >> much from these men, but was disillusioned. They all turned out
>> > >> to be
>> > >> squalid earthworms, rhetoricians, grafters and intriguers like
>> > >> the rest�
>> > >> (Isaiah Berlin 1955/1979: 313)
>> > >>
>> > >> In any case, there is certainly substantial disagreements about
>> > >> whetherthe working class has been successful, or whether it has
>> > >> been swallowed
>> > >> up in a tide of non-principled stances of influence-seekers and
>> > >> moderates, who smiled and said to just follow them.
>> > >>
>> > >> Also, your statement about print technology and labour movements
>> > >> - apart
>> > >> from relying upon a quetionable history reading - is deeply
>> > >> problematic(or somewhat empty rhetoric). Compare with this
>> statement:
>> > >>
>> > >> "When the rains came, the small ponds of the poor people were
>> filled."
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes, that is true, but it also rained in the park of the rich
>> > >> and their
>> > >> ponds were much bigger, so they were, in absolute terms, filled
>> > >> even more.
>> > >>
>> > >> In that sense, you are mobilising the labour movements in a highly
>> > >> questionable manner in defence and justification of your own
>> position.
>> > >>
>> > >> Technology changed *every*thing, the entire context for all parties
>> > >> involved in any struggle, but it likely empowered the already
>> > >> empoweredmore than the less empowered......
>> > >>
>> > >> In a silly simplification:
>> > >>
>> > >> If the power of the working class was 1.2 power points before
>> > >> print, and
>> > >> if print added 2 times power, then they ended at 2.4 power
>> > >> points. If
>> > >> the power of the rich was 3.1 before print, and if print added 2
>> times
>> > >> power, then they ended at 6.2 power points.
>> > >>
>> > >> Who gained most? Who gained most from the last twenty years of ICT
>> > >> revolution? Wal-Mart, as they pioneered just-in-time and became the
>> > >> fastest growing corporation in history since Ford (probably now
>> > >> dwarfedby that commons enclosure operation called Facebook?). To
>> > >> realise the
>> > >> potential power and emancipation for the oppressed that ICT might
>> > >> deliver requires careful consideration, not mere promises based
>> > >> on a
>> > >> dubious historical reading.
>> > >>
>> > >> Finally, while I think that technological determinism can be a
>> useful
>> > >> tool to ponder history and development, I would much rather, as a
>> > >> precautionary principle, go with the exact opposite of you....
>> > >>
>> > >> ....Here with reference to the work of James C. Scott,
>> > >> surprisingly an
>> > >> Ivy League professor, but he is also towards retirement age,
>> > >> which is
>> > >> usually when you hear them say something of radical (or even
>> > >> subversive)interest:
>> > >>
>> > >> ""
>> > >> In his most speculative and contested claim, Scott argues that
>> > >> even the
>> > >> lack of a written language in many Zomian societies is an adaptive
>> > >> measure and a conscious societal choice. For peasants, writing was,
>> > >> first and foremost, a tool of state control - it was the
>> > >> instrument the
>> > >> elite used to extract money, labor, and military service from
>> > >> them. As a
>> > >> result, Scott argues, when those peasants escaped into the hills
>> they
>> > >> discarded writing in an attempt to ensure that similar coercive
>> > >> hierarchies didn�t arise in the new societies they formed.
>> > >>
>> > >> �I�ve studied peasant rebellions, and one of first things that early
>> > >> peasant rebellions always do is to attack the records office,� says
>> > >> Scott. �They associate writing with their oppression.�
>> > >>
>> > >> The 20th century, with its arsenal of distance-devouring
>> technologies
>> > >> from the airplane to the Internet, has made it easier for states to
>> > >> smooth the friction of landscape, and recent decades have also
>> > >> seen a
>> > >> determined campaign among Asian states to bring their highland
>> regions
>> > >> into the fold, often by settling them with lowland people more
>> > >> loyal to
>> > >> the national government. As a result, since World War II, Zomia
>> > >> has lost
>> > >> much of its distinctive wildness.
>> > >> "" --- from:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/06/the_mystery_of_zomia/
>> > >>
>> > >> See also "Zomia, A Zone of Resistance: The Last Great Enclosure
>> > >> Movementand Stateless Peoples in Southeast Asia":
>> > >> http://www.forcedmigration.org/events/2008/colsonlecture/
>> > >>
>> > >> From that perspective, your position is somewhat old school marxist,
>> > >> insofar as I know and understand any of all that: we just have
>> > >> to keep
>> > >> on pushing through capitalism and we will get to the promised
>> > >> land in
>> > >> the end. It doesn't resonate with me. I would much rather ask
>> > >> criticallywhile we walk and use lessons from history written not
>> > >> by winners.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> I see more and more clearly that certain individuals and
>> > >> social forces,
>> > >>> instead of focusing their critical gaze on the system of
>> > >> infinite growth
>> > >>> that is destroying the biosphere, are focusing their critical
>> > >> gaze on those
>> > >>> who are actually closer to them; and seeking division instead of
>> > >>> commonality; complaining about the imperfections and relative
>> > >> blindness of
>> > >>> the free culture movement; rather than to see alignment
>> > >> between social
>> > >>> forces that would have the greatest potential uniting.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Is this based on something I said? You have managed to turn the
>> > >> whole thing around?!?! The current growth paradigm thrives on
>> > >> "renewabletechnology" (wind turbines, hybrid cars), and digital
>> > >> commons - these
>> > >> are central to the growth vision. The expansion of digital
>> > >> commons is
>> > >> destroying the biosphere. The critical gaze that focuses on the
>> > >> materiality of cyberspace and thus the ecological problems of the
>> > >> digital commons is precisely addressing the problem of infinite
>> growth
>> > >> in a non-simplistic manner - trying to negotiate an ambiguous
>> problem:
>> > >> how can we have digital networks without destroying the environment?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> To compare say the digital commons of appropedia, and its
>> > >> efforts to create
>> > >>> sustainable and appropriate technology for local communities
>> > >> worldwide, with
>> > >>> the multinational owners of a supermarket chain, is in my
>> > >> eyes, a perverse
>> > >>> equation, and shows that a certain sense of priorities has
>> > >> been lost, ("Digital
>> > >>> commons are parasites on natural resources and territories
>> > >>> of people elsewhere in the world in much the same way as
>> > >> supermarkets are.")
>> > >>
>> > >> It is not very helpful to shift from the general to the
>> > >> particular in
>> > >> the middle of a conceptual discussion. I spoke of digital
>> > >> commons in
>> > >> general - and pointed to a factual general problem - and you respond
>> > >> with a specific example..... perhaps an exemption to prove the rule?
>> > >>
>> > >> For what it is worth: It is not perverse, but a simple fact: the
>> > >> energyuse of a supermarket - from electricity use in the store
>> > >> to the fossil
>> > >> fuel fertilisers used in the production of the commodities for
>> > >> sale - is
>> > >> very comparable to the energy and resource use that digital commons
>> > >> entail, if you see it from the perspective of the oppressed,
>> > >> landless or
>> > >> through the eyes of the children disassembling hardware when it is
>> > >> recycled. The supermarket helps some of the poor, some of the
>> > >> time - for
>> > >> instance a single mother or the career, short-of-time feminist
>> > >> on her
>> > >> way to a meeting about resisting the cuts - indeed, supermarkets can
>> > >> help many people, including those who work for it, who would
>> otherwise
>> > >> be unemployed, but it comes with a tremendous cost for others,
>> > >> which is
>> > >> "hidden".
>> > >>
>> > >> The shareholders of Carrefour and Wal-Mart cheer on
>> > >> supermarkets, just
>> > >> as the shareholders of IBM and Google cheer on Open Source, Open
>> > >> Accessand other areas of economic growth.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> the truth is, every living being and system is
>> > >> (inter)dependent on others
>> > >>> and in that sense, a parasite ... what matters is to create
>> > >> sustainable> flows between the various living systems, and to
>> > >> generate collective
>> > >>> intelligence between autonomous individuals and communities,
>> > >> in order to
>> > >>> achieve that, for which digital commons are not parasites, but
>> > >> essential> enablers,
>> > >>
>> > >> But they are also exploitors - through mining, heavy metal
>> pollution,
>> > >> sweatshop labour and so on - and this is not an ideological
>> > >> point, but
>> > >> a simple fact.
>> > >>
>> > >> However, all that said, I agree, let us break some eggs to make the
>> > >> omelette. I never wanted to argue that the internet should be
>> > >> torn down
>> > >> - what would I be doing here? - but it should be used
>> > >> consciously and in
>> > >> recognition and full admittance of its costs. There is no such
>> > >> thing as
>> > >> marginal reproduction cost, except in Wonderland, perhaps, where
>> > >> perpetual motion machines are possible and where gravity can be
>> defied
>> > >> by will alone.
>> > >>
>> > >> The immateriality argument about the relation between cost and
>> > >> reproduction of digital goods, is really comparable to, say, the
>> > >> relation between light in your house, on the one hand, and
>> electricity
>> > >> and the continued upkeep of the electrical infrastructure
>> > >> (nuclear power
>> > >> plants, cables, wires, pylons, switches and so on) on the other: It
>> > >> doesn't *seem to* cost anything when I flick the switch and the
>> light
>> > >> comes on in "my" house, so why isn't it just free? Would anyone
>> > >> take me
>> > >> serious if I said that?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> as hard as it may be to do and understand, we need to chew gum
>> > >> and walk at
>> > >>> the same time, using digital commons to organize, while
>> > >> working at the same
>> > >>> time to lighten the physical footprint of digital commons, and
>> > >> using global
>> > >>> open design communities to build open and 'light'
>> > >> infrastructures to achieve
>> > >>> sustainability,
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes, and I never said anything different - but how do you
>> > >> propose to
>> > >> "lighten the footprint", as collective action, when the
>> > >> collective is in
>> > >> denial about that footprint and when its leaders and
>> > >> consequently the
>> > >> followers perpetuate the denial?
>> > >>
>> > >> With the best of wishes,
>> > >> martin
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> p2presearch mailing list
>> > >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> > >>
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> > >
>> > > ****
>> > > Dr Mathieu O'Neil
>> > > Adjunct Research Fellow
>> > > Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
>> > > College of Arts and Social Science
>> > > The Australian National University
>> > > email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au
>> > > web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > p2presearch mailing list
>> > > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> > > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > p2presearch mailing list
>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org<http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> > Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> ****
> Dr Mathieu O'Neil
> Adjunct Research Fellow
> Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
> College of Arts and Social Science
> The Australian National University
> email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au
> web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
--
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
Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101208/b4552d1b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list