[p2p-research] ecotechnic future
Joss Winn
joss at josswinn.org
Thu Jul 22 10:45:09 CEST 2010
Hi Sepp,
Over the last couple of years since you wrote your blog post, there's
been a number of reports and academic papers which are worth reviewing
and may alter your view.
My view is that the oil companies are not intentionally restraining
crude oil production although clearly OPEC is in a position to
manipulate the market for oil to a degree and speculators can also
manipulate the price to a certain extent, but the trends seem clear to
me when the fallacy of energy efficiency, reality of net energy and the
reported supply and demand figures are taken into account.
Why restrict production while at the same time, make up the shortfall in
demand through the the use of other liquid fuels with lower net energy?
Since 2005, crude oil production has plateued, with additional demand
met by biofuels and unconventional oil (deep water/tar, etc.).
This month's Oil Watch illustrates this (and more) nicely.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6600
Your blog post refers to CERA's forecasts of rising production, but you
are also probably aware that CERA are increasingly alone on this.
I do agree with you that we'd probably allow people to starve before
shutting down communication lines. Lives are lost regularly in our
search for energy and will continue to be, for sure.
Anyway, here are a few references I'd recommend if you or anyone would
like varied, recent research and reporting on current and possible
future problems with liquid fuel supplies.
Global Witness report (2009). Highly critical, from the perspective of
an NGO:
http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_get.php/1084/1256592598/heads_in_the_sand_print.pdf
UK Energy Research Centre study (2009). A large (the largest?) academic
metastudy and assessment of peak oil predictions:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=283
Lloyds Insurers/Chatham House report on strategic risks to business
(2010). A warning to business about energy shortages:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16720_0610_froggatt_lahn.pdf
The Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security report (2010). A
UK business group warning of an oil crunch worse than credit crunch in
next five years:
http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf
Oxford University research group, led by ex UK Chief Scientist, David
King. The status of conventional world oil reserves—Hype or cause for
concern? (2010). It concludes that OPEC reserves are overstated by a
third. Decline in overall global production by 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.026 (restricted access, my
summary here:
http://joss.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2010/05/13/peak-oil-and-climate-change-notes/)
On my flippant remark above about the 'fallacy of energy efficiencies',
I'm referring to the 'rebound effect', which you (though not everyone on
the P2P list) are probably familiar with. A thorough (2007) academic
study of this is here:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=ReboundEffect2
The point being that a growing global population with a desire for
affluence leads to more energy being used per capita *globally*, not
less. See this chart: http://j.mp/d3wMWP
Genuine technological efficiencies are swallowed up by real people
wanting a more affluent life. See also, the I=PxAxT equation:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/I_PAT
See also, slide 6 from my slides here, which shows an example from the
literature about energy efficiencies:
http://www.slideshare.net/josswinn/duall The small print is important :-)
On net energy, I'd recommend Heinberg's 'Searching for a Miracle' (2009)
http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle
There are many other worthwhile references, but this is a diverse
selection from various analysts, industry insiders, academics and
businesses. The one thing that is becoming very clear to me, is that
global demand for liquid fuels will almost certainly outstrip supply
this decade if global economic growth remains possible and is pursued.
Respectfully,
Joss
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com
> <mailto: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>
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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>
>> > <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>>
>> >
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>> >
>> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> <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
>> <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>> >
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list