[p2p-research] ecotechnic future

[Michel Bauwens]

thanks Sepp, we agree on the conclusions,

Michel

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>wrote:

> Thank you Michel,
>
> for my part, I understand that one branch of science sees oil as renewable
> (not of fossil origin) and as a rather plentiful resource. Thomas Gold
> describes this in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere
>
> Peak oil advocates usually don't like to talk about the fact that exhausted
> oil fields tend to gradually fill up again, after having been abandoned for
> some years. They also don't like to dwell on huge oil finds that are not
> being developed as a matter of choice.
>
> The theory of Peak Oil comes out of oil company research. M. King Hubbert,
> the originator of the peak oil theory, was working for Shell Oil when, in
> 1956, he first elaborated his theory. He stayed on with Shell for another 8
> years after that, before changing over into an academic career. So I hold it
> doubtful that "the oil companies fought the peak oil thesis tooth and nail".
> At least one of them seems to have been the cradle of the theory.
>
> Peak oil as a theory has been around for decades, but it seems that the
> point of the peak is being constantly adjusted and pushed into the future.
>
> But anyway, let's not try to resolve this. We disagree on this point, and
> we can do so until more evidence appears, to resolve the question one way or
> the other.
>
> I just don't like to accept something my research tells me is highly
> doubtful. It's a matter of principle, although I do fully agree that we
> should get off oil and onto better methods of energy production. After all,
> oil pollutes - no doubt about that - and there are cleaner ways to supply
> our needs for energy. As a matter of fact, one of my main endeavors is to
> push new clean energy generation technologies.
>
> Kind regards
> Sepp
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 22/lug/10, at 07:08, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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/20100723/9e014bbb/attachment.html>