[p2p-research] ecotechnic future

Thu Jul 22 09:08:43 CEST 2010

thanks Sepp,

the oil companies fought the peak oil thesis tooth and nail, and are still
divesting renewables, an industry which they pretty much destroyed in the
seventies (I worked for BP and its senior management, in dailhy contact for
3 years,  and saw this first hand, they absolutely denied and fought peak
oil and renewables) so unless they were all faking it to themselves and
there was a secret cabal within a secret cabal, I do not believe this
statement

accepting peak oil, means policies which reduce usage, means more
renewables,. means more supply, means prices go down, and their power fades,
they do not like that ...

it is true that international org's are now reluctantly accepting peak oil,
but that is because the evidence is so overwhelming they can no longer deny
it, like that tobacco is bad for your health ..

now of course that oil companies play all kind of short term games for
supply and demand, fail to invest, cheat with figures (but no the sense you
think , they have always systematically over-inflated reserves), etc... is
no secret ..

peak oil has nothing to do with such a short term squeeze, it's just the
perfectly natural prediction that any limited resource is limited, the only
question is 'when', and these things can be calculated, though not with 100%
certainty

Michel

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com> wrote:

> Michel,
>
> my view on this is that we are not in an energy shortage era, and that real
> energy shortage is nowhere near.
>
> There is a lot of talk about peak oil and having to make do with less, but
> if you look at the actual physical scene, those dire predictions are just
> that - predictions. The shortage that is predicted is contrived by oil
> interests intent on making as much money as they can on a technology that is
> on its way out, not because of physical shortages but because the burning of
> fossil fuels is antiquated technology and is about to be replaced by
> renewables in a big way.
>
> I do not agree with Greer that we are facing a future of decline because
> we're about to run out of energy.
>
> Electronics are also evolving towards using less and less energy, so even
> if there *was* a shortage to come, we would not lose our ability to
> communicate. We'd travel less, and we'd probably be starving before we would
> have to shut down the communication lines for lack of energy.
>
> I do not think that p2p is in any way threatened by an energy shortage.
>
> To be really clear about this, I believe that the idea of "peak oil" is a
> fraud perpetrated to increase oil company profits, and that there is no
> *physical* shortage of oil. Yes, I realize it is being pushed like crazy,
> but that does not make it true in my book.
>
> I have put some information together on this a while ago, and posted it on
> my blog.
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/2008/02/the_peak_oil_deception_squeezi.html
>
>
> Sepp
>
>
>
>  On 21/lug/10, at 08:00, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>  HI Joss,
>
> very interesting points, my interest is, how can we insure to have some
> form of p2p networks, that are cheap enough to produce and maintain, so that
> they can remain functioning even in the context of peak oil deglobalization
> of the material economy,
>
> is anyone working on this?
>
> perhaps this is something that Sepp should focus his investigations on in
> the future?
>
> here's a summary of greer below, I have selected those comments, below in
> the copy-paste, that deal specifically with the future of the internet
>
> Michel
>
>
>  source is
> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/03/logic-of-abundance.html
> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-differences-and-commonalities-between-shared-code-for-immaterial-production-and-shared-design-for-material-production/2010/07/20>
>
>
> Will the internet survive energy contraction?<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/will-the-internet-survive-energy-contraction/2010/07/24>
> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens]
> Michel Bauwens
> 24th July 2010
>
>  If I’m right about the end of the internet, it won’t be an immediate
> event — rather, costs will rise and access will diminish over time. Whether
> public libraries are restocked during that process, or whether private
> libraries become the next information nexus, is a good question *…* What
> I’ve suggested is that as costs rise and pressures for control escalate, it
> will gradually become an expensive luxury used mostly by government, big
> business, and the rich, while everyone else falls back on less sophisticated
> methods of interaction. It could straggle on for some time before resource
> shortages or sociopolitical collapse or any of a dozen other things finally
> pulls the plug.
>
> *1.*
>
> Obviously a very serious challenge<http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/03/logic-of-abundance.html>to our assumptions here at the P2P Foundation, by
> *John Michael Greer*:
>
> *“Given the modern world’s obsession with economic issues, one of the best
> examples of this reshaping of assumptions by the implications of cheap
> concentrated energy has been the forceful resistance so many of us put up
> nowadays to thinking about technology in economic terms. It should be
> obvious that whether or not a given technology or suite of technologies
> continues to exist in a world of depleting resources depends first and
> foremost on three essentially economic factors. The first is whether the
> things done by that technology are necessities or luxuries, and if they are
> necessities, just how necessary they are; the second is whether the same
> things, or at least the portion of them that must be done, can be done by
> another technology at a lower cost in scarce resources; the third is how the
> benefits gained by keeping the technology supplied with the scarce resources
> it needs measures up to the benefits gained by putting those same resources
> to other uses.*
>
> *Nowadays, though, this fairly straightforward calculus of needs and costs
> is anything but obvious. If I suggest in a post here, for example, that the
> internet will fail on all three counts in the years ahead of us – very
> little of what it does is necessary; most of the things it does can be done
> with much less energy and resource use, albeit at a slower pace, by other
> means; and the resources needed to keep it running would in many cases
> produce a better payback elsewhere – you can bet your bottom dollar that a
> good many of the responses will ignore this analysis entirely, and insist
> that since it’s technically possible to keep the internet in existence, and
> a fraction of today’s economic and social arrangements currently depend on
> (or at least use) the internet, the internet must continue to exist. Now
> it’s relevant to point out that the world adapted very quickly to using
> email and Google in place of postage stamps and public libraries, and will
> doubtless adapt just as quickly to using postage stamps and libraries in
> place of email and Google if that becomes necessary, but this sort of
> thinking – necessary as it will be in the years to come – finds few takers
> these days.”*
>
> *2.*
>
> Greer continues with the more general point that we have become addicted to
> exceptionally cheap energy, and thus a logic of abundance in the physical
> world, which is now deeply rooted in our worldperspectives:
>
> *” It’s been fashionable to assume that the arc of progress was what made
> all that energy available, but there’s very good reason to think that this
> puts the cart well in front of the horse. Rather, it was the huge surpluses
> of available energy that made technological progress both possible and
> economically viable, as inventors, industrialists, and ordinary people all
> discovered that it really was cheaper to have machines powered by fossil
> fuels take over jobs that had been done for millennia by human and animal
> muscles, fueled by solar energy in the form of food.*
>
> *The logic of abundance that was made plausible as well as possible by
> those surpluses has had impacts on our society that very few people in the
> peak oil scene have yet begun to confront. For example, many of the most
> basic ways that modern industrial societies handle energy make sense only if
> fossil fuel energy is so cheap and abundant that waste simply isn’t
> something to worry about. One of this blog’s readers, Sebastien Bongard,
> pointed out to me in a recent email that on average, only a third of the
> energy that comes out of electrical power plants reaches an end user; the
> other two-thirds are converted to heat by the electrical resistance of the
> power lines and transformers that make up the electrical grid. For the sake
> of having electricity instantly available from sockets on nearly every wall
> in the industrial world, in other words, we accept unthinkingly a system
> that requires us to generate three times as much electricity as we actually
> use. *
>
> *In a world where concentrated energy sources are scarce and expensive,
> many extravagances of this kind will stop being possible, and most of them
> will stop being economically feasible. In a certain sense, this is a good
> thing, because it points to ways in which nations facing crisis because of a
> shortage of concentrated energy sources can cut their losses and maintain
> vital systems. It’s been pointed out repeatedly, for example, that the
> electrical grids that supply power to homes and businesses across the
> industrial world will very likely stop being viable early on in the process
> of contraction.”*
>
> *3.*
>
> After showing that national energy grids that waste two-thirds of their
> energy may not be viable in many places, Greer then makes a plea for
> distributed energy infrastructures, with a maximum amount of renewable
> energy to be produced at the local level:
>
> *“As the age of abundance made possible by fossil fuels comes to its
> inevitable end, a great many things could be done to cushion the impact.
> Quite a few of these things could be done by individuals, families, and
> local communities – to continue with the example under discussion, it would
> not be that hard for people who live in rural areas or suburbs to provide
> themselves with backup systems using local renewable energy to keep their
> homes viable in the event of a prolonged, or even a permanent, electrical
> outage. None of the steps involved are hugely expensive, most of them have
> immediate payback in the form of lower energy bills, and local and national
> governments in much of the industrial world are currently offering financial
> incentives – some of them very robust – to those who do them. Despite this,
> very few people are doing them, and most of the attention and effort that
> goes into responses to a future of energy constraints focuses on finding new
> ways to pump electricity into a hugely inefficient electrical grid, without
> ever asking whether this will be a viable response to an age when the
> extravagance of the present day is no longer an option. *
>
> *This is why attention to the economics of energy in the wake of peak oil
> is so crucial. Could an electrical grid of the sort we have today, with its
> centralized power plants and its vast network of wires bringing power to
> sockets on every wall, remain a feature of life throughout the industrial
> world in an energy-constrained future? If attempts to make sense of that
> future assume that this will happen as a matter of course, or start with the
> unexamined assumption that such a grid is the best (or only) possible way to
> handle scarce energy, and fixate on technical debates about whether and how
> that can be made to happen, the core issues that need to be examined slip
> out of sight. The question that has to be asked instead is whether a power
> grid of the sort we take for granted will be economically viable in such a
> future – that is, whether such a grid is as necessary as it seems to us
> today; whether the benefits of having it will cover the costs of maintaining
> and operating it; and whether the scarce resources it uses could produce a
> better return if put to work in some other way.*
>
> *Local conditions might provide any number of answers to that question. In
> some countries and regions, where people live close together and renewable
> energy sources such as hydroelectric power promise a stable supply of
> electricity for the relatively long term, a national grid of the current
> type may prove viable. In others, as suggested above, it might be much more
> viable to have restricted power grids supplying urban areas and critical
> infrastructure, while rural hinterlands return to locally generated power or
> to non-electrified lifestyles. In still others, a power grid of any kind
> might prove to be economically impossible. *
>
> *Under all these conditions, even the first, it makes sense for
> governments to encourage citizens and businesses to provide as much of their
> own energy needs as possible from locally available, diffuse energy sources
> such as sunlight and wind.”*
>
> *4.*
>
> One of the most interesting answers in the comments is from Mash:
>
> In a nutshell, he argues that:
>
> If we end up with a true dark ages of NO technology, maybe we’ll lose the
> internet. But the very nature of it makes it one of the most resilient
> networks we’ve created. Because it’s not really “a” network. It’s a lot of
> little networks connected together, forming something that people find
> massively useful for information transfer.
>
> and explains why this is so:
>
> *” “The internet” is not really “gmail” or “blogger” or “facebook” or
> “wikipedia”. It’s not even the sum of these things. It’s a way in which you
> can get sophisticated networking algorithms given some very simplistic
> mechanisms. (eg: “if you have too many packets, just drop whatever. make the
> ends figure out when and what to retransmit”)*
>
> *And “the internet” isn’t really about universal connection. Anyone who
> has lived in a remote country knows how “the rest of the world” can
> disappear, but your local sites can continue to function.*
>
> *So, the devolution of the internet may happen in a very similar manner to
> the way it originally grew.*
>
> *Back in the dim dark ages even some of the “central” servers connected to
> each other on an irregular schedule, and during the time they were
> connected, exchanged information, and then disconnected once more. (eg:
> UUCP).*
>
> *Remember, part of the goal of “the internet” was to continue to provide
> useful service even in the face of damage. So maybe that damage is
> widespread, maybe it gets worse, but there is something useful to be gained
> just from having your computer connected to your neighbor’s computer.*
>
> *And that’s another part I think you’re missing. Information will always
> be transmitted SOMEHOW. You think we’ll go back to paper. I suppose it’s
> possible – if we lose the capability to create ANYTHING electronic (and
> maybe that will happen someday). But before we get that far, we’ve got a lot
> of intermediate steps. Think about the telegraph. Places connected with
> unreliable wires that required a lot of effort to maintain – but it worked
> because people wanted to be able to say hello.*
>
> *Now take all the knowledge we now have about using simple networking
> methods (“the internet”), and reduce what we have available to use it with
> in steps.*
>
> *First of all we might lose the “available everywhere”. Undersea cables
> get cut, satellites fail, the infrastructure as a whole turns into
> continents of connectivity separated by vast oceans of distance.*
>
> *Next maybe we lose the reliability. The longer distances (like between
> cities) have connections – sometimes. Maybe an unreliable wire. Maybe a weak
> radio link.*
>
> *But somewhere along that line we have local areas of connectivity – maybe
> something like a local telephone exchange (except now that we know how, why
> would we make a dedicated voice service instead of a data service? Now we
> know how to make voice look like data, and make that voice easier to handle
> by doing so)*
>
> *And we have unreliable connections over the long distances. But in “the
> internet” we have created the exact formulas that allow us to use those
> connections to continue the information transfer in the most useful way
> possible.*
>
> *If we end up with a true dark ages of NO technology, maybe we’ll lose the
> internet. But the very nature of it makes it one of the most resilient
> networks we’ve created. Because it’s not really “a” network. It’s a lot of
> little networks connected together, forming something that people find
> massively useful for information transfer.*
>
> *Once you see those intermediate steps of devolution, your questions of “3
> essential economic factors” have a lot more answers. It can still go totally
> black – but that’s a LONG way down.”*
>
> *6.*
>
> Also in the comments, Pasttense writes:
>
> *“The internet is going to survive because it is the most energy efficient
> technology. Carpooling to work vs mass transit? The more efficient is
> neither–telecommuting from your home is better. Likewise consider an email
> vs mailing a letter. A few electrons vs all the energy to cut the tree, move
> the tree to the papermill, create the paper, move the paper to the envelope
> factory, manufacture the envelope, move the envelope to the wholesaler, move
> the envelope to the retailer, your trip to purchase the envelope, the
> envelope’s trip to the post office, to a sorting center, to a couple more
> sorting/postal offices, the carrier’s trip to your mail box…*
>
> *As to the efficiencies vs inefficiencies of the grid; note that the
> generating capacity to serve a million separate households in an off-grid
> manner is going to be many, many times the generating capacity you need via
> a grid because of the economies of load-sharing.”*
>
> *7.*
>
> A correspondent from Thailand adds:
>
> *“For over a decade I’ve lived in a region of the world where I can
> experience first hand how people live without an electric grid.*
>
> *Except for refrigeration, it is quite possible. Most have a car battery.
> Some wealthy families have two. When the battery is drained, they leave it
> out on the roadside, and every morning a motorcycle with a trailer comes by
> to pick up the battery, charge it, and return it before nightfall. The cost
> for this service is about 30 US cents. This is all rural villagers really
> need. The battery provides power for lights, phone charging, a fan if
> necessary, and generally a television set. Except for refrigeration,
> electric grids are a luxury.*
>
> *The question always comes up as to why an enterprising individual does
> not set up his own grid, or why the government doesn’t do it, and the answer
> is always the same. Theft of the power lines. Unless you can keep them
> continuously live, they will be stolen and sold for scrap. Only the mafia is
> immune from theft. During the commodities spike in 2008, Thailand suffered
> from a high tension power line that blew over in a storm. The reason was
> because bandits had stolen 6 of the 8 steel bolts that stabilized the tower.
> It cost over $300K USD to repair. The bolts probably fetched $50 in scrap
> value.”*
>
> *8.*
>
> We conclude with how John Michael Greer responds to the above challenges
> and critiques:
>
> *“the internet is very useful, therefore it will be maintained.”*
>
> *That simply fails the logic test. Usefulness and maintainability and
> viability are separate ideas, with no necessary connection.*
>
> *Doubtless the Roman messenger relay system was very useful. Important
> military intelligence was conveyed quickly back to Rome, which was able to
> use that information to direct troop movements, and adjust political and
> diplomatic responses to events. And the infrastructure of a vast network of
> all-weather roads from one end of the Empire to the other was vital not only
> for military purposes, but the enormous trade it enabled of raw materials
> and finished goods, which supported the cost of the network and made the
> centralization of the Empire possible.*
>
> *And yet, that system ceased to work. Despite it’s obvious value as a
> communication and commercial resource, the cost of maintaining the roads,
> bridges and fortifications, and manning the fortresses was so great that
> eventually Rome gave it up. In urban areas, where it made sense, the network
> was maintained or even expanded. Outside of those areas, much of the system
> was simply lost, the roads swallowed by forests, mudslides, wandering
> rivers, fields and weeds, the fortifications falling to ruin and scavenged
> for building materials, the bridges succumbing to earthquake and flood.*
>
> *True, telecommuting is more efficient of power than the current system of
> physical commuting. But perhaps the choice will be not between telecommuting
> and a 30 minute drive, but between walking a mile or two to work and not
> having a job. And what if there simply are no jobs? The current system of
> employment is only about 250 years old. Prior to that, most people were
> peasants, slaves, farmers, artisans and merchants. And frankly (I say this
> as a telecommuter) any job you can do via telecommuting may well be too
> abstract for the post-peak future.*
>
> *Email may be more efficient overall than snail mail, but what if there’s
> no route to host? What if one end or the other of the communication has no
> computer, or no internet connection, or no power? What if your primary goal
> for the day is to split enough fence rails to keep that @#$%@# goat in, or
> to scrounge enough 36ga copper wire to build a new RF modulator, rather than
> to cruise for pron and respond to JMG’s latest attempt to appeal to the left
> side of your brain?*
>
> *Also note that the postal system can be and has been run entirely on
> muscle power. The same cannot be said about email.”*
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 20/07/10 10:45, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> > hi joss,
>> >
>> > you could be right, hypothesing on greer's point of view, that our p2p
>> > approach has a fatal flaw, it is it's reliance on the further existence
>> > of networked communication,
>> >
>> > but precisely because greer himself posits a long and phased descent, I
>> > think it is likely that even when the globalized peak oil regime
>> > collapses, local communities will have enough resources to adapt or
>> > modify the new universal info and communication infrastructure ...
>>
>> I think that's a fair point. Greer's descent is decadal reaching into
>> the next century. We are living it right now and still maintaining a
>> robust communications network. Greer thinks we're in for a future of
>> low-tech and, as you mentioned before, is an advocate of appropriate
>> technology as a way to ride the collapse.
>>
>> However, what interests me in particular, is the next 5-10 years, when
>> liquid fuel production is anticipated to properly decline and the global
>> peak oil theory is realised in practice. It will be interesting to see
>> the initial effects of this so as to better extrapolate the long term
>> impacts.
>>
>> The peak in 2008 of both price and total liquid fuels pushed up
>> inflation and arguably contributed to the financial mess we're in now.
>> (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/consequences_of.html).
>>
>> The US economy appears to go into recession whenever oil prices are
>> sustained over $85/barrel (http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5304).
>>
>> This view accords well with Colin Campbell's anticipated effects. He's
>> the guy the coined the term Peak Oil
>> (http://stuck.josswinn.org/a-sequence-of-vicious-circles-and-gradually-t
>> ).
>>
>> If we are in for a future of these short cycles of rise and fall, rise
>> and fall further - similar to Greer's Catabolic Collapse theory, then it
>> is likely to have an impact on the affordability and accessibility of
>> communications networks as well as their continued development and
>> maintenance.
>>
>> More of a concern than whether we can use the Internet, is our reliance
>> on just-in-time business models. Back in 2000, when the UK haulage
>> companies went on strike over petrol prices, supermarkets started
>> emptying out after a couple of days and people were panic buying
>> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/924478.stm).
>>
>> NEF has written a nice pamphlet called 'Nine Meals from Anarchy', which
>> speculates on this further.
>> http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/nine-meals-anarchy
>>
>> Food production and distribution, medicines, water distribution, and
>> many other vital supplies and services, are dependent on oil.
>>
>> How this is handled by government and the rest of us, will be key and
>> I'm interested in how P2P can help us respond, with or without
>> widespread access to the net over the next 20 years.
>>
>> Joss
>>
>>
>> >
>> > what do other think, this is a very crucial point for the human future?
>> >
>> > Michel
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org
>>  > <mailto:joss at josswinn.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 19/07/10 07:08, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> >     > Hi Kevin,
>> >     >
>> >     > feel free to take any take you want, though I believe that Greer's
>> >     > thinking is actually quite sophisticated and precise, and he's not
>> at
>> >     > all a simple-minded primitivist ..
>> >
>> >     I'd second that.
>> >
>> >     >
>> >     > his current project is to create a huge commons for appropriate
>> >     > technology knowledge that could be used for local communities,
>> >     >
>> >     > I'm not sure what his take is on networked technology,
>> >
>> >     I think he envisages its decline. I'm pretty certain I've read
>> comments
>> >     to that effect. Here's a post which is typical:
>> >
>> >
>> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/03/logic-of-abundance.html
>> >
>> >
>> >     >
>> >     > his response to my emails were: "read my book" <g>
>> >     >
>> >
>> >     I've read his Long Descent, which I enjoyed. For a shorter statement
>> on
>> >     his collapse theory, see:
>> >
>> >     http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf
>> >
>> >     It's worth keeping in mind that for Greer, we are already in a
>> process
>> >     of collapse - it is not something in the future but a historical,
>> >     observable fact. For Greer, Peak Oil, declining net energy,
>> ecological
>> >     overshoot, financial collapse, etc. attest to this.
>> >
>> >     I think he would support the pragmatism of P2P but find the
>> centrality
>> >     of and reliance on networked communication to be its fatal flaw. If
>> you
>> >     buy the theory of net energy depletion (
>> http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/),
>> >     it suggests that the energy intensive lives of developed countries
>> will
>> >     decline to a level that can be supported by fairly simple renewable
>> >     energy (remember that current renewable energy is built with fossil
>> >     fuels - a world of renewables built on renewables is not the same).
>> >
>> >     As far as technology is concerned, Greer advocates stuff like
>> home-made
>> >     solar showers and learning the use of a slide ruler:
>> >
>> >
>> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/principles-for-sustainable-tech.html
>> >
>> >     Joss
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     p2presearch mailing list
>> >     p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto: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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20100722/33bd6a2a/attachment-0001.html>