[p2p-research] The Commons Abundance Debate

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Brian,

we also have a p2p mailing list, which I cc'ed, for perhaps further
contributions ..

Concerning the contribution below, I have a certain sympathy for those that
do not want to get involved in a new technology, such as those who refused
writing, to read printed books, to watch TV, and now: use the internet. It's
a legimate choice, and I have beloved family members who do so, yet at the
same time, it will be the choice of the minority, and I believe the majority
of humankind, especially those who are deprived from it, will find it as an
absolute priority to be connected to their fellow men. Here where I live, as
soon as the poor have some money, they buy a motorcycle and a mobile phone,
followed by the TV, and the omnipresent cybercafes are full day and night,
and not by the rich and  middle classes, who own their own computers. They
know what a vital need for communication and learning they have, and that
they now have direct access to a vast store of information and learning,
which they not only use to 'join the consumer society', but also, to
self-organise in many ways previously unthinkable.

But I think that choosing ignorance through non-use, and then proposing
solutions that impact the equally legitimate choices of those who want to be
connected, and that in fact then impose on others one own's choices, are a
very dangerous path.

Of course, no one except tea party'ers ignores that are planet is in serious
problems, and that our computing infrastructure consumes resources, but
restricting internet time through such a authoritarian measure, and given
the monopoly of communication to moneyed interests seems such a
counter-intuive measure and destined to send anyone who proposes it to
political oblivion ... with friends such as these, does the environmental
movement need any enemies?

why not promote green computing, use the internet to save carbon following
the detailed proposals of Bill St. Arnaud, and use the power of collective
intelligent and autonomous self-organisation to solve global issues? why not
use the internet as a means of constructing a new world with new
infrastructures and new life forms, and as a means of social struggle and
unity on a global scale, against the enemy which already long time ago has
used the same weapons against us, which they for decades possessed as a
monopoly ... using mass media against which no effective counter-measures
existed ..

I must say that your earlier text had given me little inkling that you, or
Feasta perhaps, were positioning itself in such an anti-digital-tech stance
... I personally think this can only isolate the movement, and loose any
real contact with the younger generations ... and sever linkages with all
the social forces that are using online and F2F collaboration to develop
lighter and environmentally friendly, commons-oriented infrastructures,

Without the digital, the traditional commons would have continued their
decay, overcome by the superior forces of globally coordinated capital, and
the counter-movements, digitally enabled and organized, would not have seen
the light of day, and neither would shared knowledge commons, shared
software commons, and shared design for sustainability

in fact, without the digital, neither the berlin conference, nor global
movements such as transition, would be at all possible, or at least their
substantial growth in such a short timescale ..

and of course, supreme irony, this conversastion would not have taken place,

What I see as a danger is the emergence of a new puritanism, which uses
ecology as a vehicle to hide a basic orientation which is opposed to
exuberance of life; I'm not saying it can't succeed, it may well one day
prove popular with a demoralized population after decades of social
dislocation, but I do not wish for it,

Michel




On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hello Michel
>
> A friend sent me this (below) - Alan Simpson was, until the last
> election, a Labour member of the British Parliament. He did not stand
> at the last election to be able to get more involved and do more
> environmental politics and now works for the British Friends of the
> Earth on climate policy and renewables 3 days a week. He sent this
> response to me and I asked him if he wanted it to be posted into the
> discussion and he said yes...I will also suggest to Roberto that we
> carry on any discussion through the blog rather than through an email
> list...which would have been a more sensible way to proceed - although
> lots of my contacts didn't go to the conference and I would like to
> get them involved in these discussions. Hopefully we can widen out and
> get a good broad discussion going on the way forward and the
> understandings for the commons movement generally...
>
> When Roberto replies I will come back with my response....
>
> Brian
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alan <alan at alansimpson.org>
> Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: The Commons Abundance Debate
> To: Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
> As you know, I am crap on the computer and try to avoid it where I
> can. Somewhere in my incompetence there is also the notion that
> freedom from the internet is as important as freedom within it. If the
> internet becomes a drug used by people who do not get out enough, it
> takes you into a different notion of abundance. An abundance of dope,
> for instance, is not the same as a world of abundance. I had a
> conversation along these lines with researchers in the House of
> Commons, following an Evening Standard article saying Londoners (aged
> 16-30) spent 5 hours a day on Facebook. Since I wouldn't even know how
> to find Facebook I asked them if this was remotely possible. They all
> said it was really easy, particularly if you wanted to keep up with
> all your Facebook friends. It seems that you can have up to 1000 such
> 'friends', but I soon gathered that you never actually meet up. Nor do
> you necessarily know if the persona you are befriending is real or
> not. When I asked about 'real' friends it became clear that most of
> these guys genuinely didn't have meaningful relationships in the
> outside world. Is this a world of abundance or the delusion of
> abundance?
>
> This was not the philosophical tack I intended to leap into as a
> reply, so I will go back to the other point that needs to be factored
> in. In terms of carbon footprints, information now weighs more heavily
> than aviation. Google, Microsoft, Apple and all the big data handling
> systems end up using more energy to cool their systems than it takes
> to run them. They now come into the category of big energy users. The
> carbon intensity of the industry is frightening.
>
> We used to associate this with the dark satanic mills of
> industrialisation. Today, we have a better quality of pollution;
> cleaner, more discrete, more civilised. Personal carbon budgets may
> constrain this - inviting a choice between 30 mins on the internet
> and/or lunch - but I doubt such budgets will ever emerge at a personal
> level. To do anything meaningful about global carbon emissions you
> need to tackle the big polluters. Their defence will be that this is a
> form of censorship, an attack on the information 'commons' that
> everyone should have a round-the-clock entitlement to. Those with the
> greatest addiction will make the loudest protests. It is a strange
> paradox that those with the most acute awareness of looming climate
> crises could find themselves in.
>
> My fingers are worn out by all this typing. I am off back to my
> fountain pen. We can pick this up over coffee if you like.....
>
>  Alan
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101114/798d7f2d/attachment.html>