Engineers with sympathy?
davidc
espouse the notion of mutual aid, sharing networks, and - more
generally speaking - working and dealing with and helping each other
outside a monetary or exchange framework. I've mentioned the idea
before, and received very little response. Nonetheless, at the risk of
flogging a dead horse, I wanted to air my recent thoughts.
I'll begin with a non-comprehensive - but hopefully representative -
overview of what fora there are available for such people at present.
# CURRENT EFFORTS #
On one hand, we have movements like justfortheloveofit.org - which are
predicated on the romantic, but ultimately childish notion of "low-
tech", and aspiring to subsist on the level of technology which
existed at around the time of the bronze-age, etc.. Not many of these
people are willing to acknowledge the levels of investment, time,
energy and skill that are required to sustain the sort of lifestyles
they are accustomed to - and which many of them probably aspire to
maintain (at least in part).
Other efforts similar to justfortheloveofit (although more forward-
looking) are neighborgoods.net , sharewiki.org , etc..
On the other hand, there is the Zeitgeist movement - http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
. While I agree with some of their analysis; while I see a lot of
merit in some sort of "systems theory" approach like they are
advocating; and while I admire that they aren't settling for something
which is merely palliative ... I don't think I will ever come around
to their overreaching and drastic proposals. And even if they
convinced me personally that it was in my best interests to live in
one of their "cybernated" circular cities, I don't think they will
ever convince the world at large.
# CAN WE DO ANYTHING? #
So, although some sort of mutual aid, non-exchange-based network is
very, _very_ badly needed, I can't wholeheartedly endorse either of
these. On the other hand, what else is there?
So, I'm willing to stick my neck out and ask ...
Is there anyone here who wants to see a mutual aid, non-exchange
economy evolve - and agrees that there is effectively nothing being
done about it at the moment?
I'm mentioning this here because
1. any such endeavour is obviously going to need engineers with
various backgrounds and specialisations,
2. my sense is that these ideas hold more currency amongst members
of the free and open-source tech movement than amongst the mainstream,
and
3. obviously we would more than likely be using open-source software
and hardware.
Anyone interested is welcome to contact me either on- or off-list -
although on-list would probably be better, and is preferred.
See also:
- Reprap forum, 'Wealth without money?' : http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,93080
david
Kostas
just a couple of comments for the freeconomy and the Zeitegeist
Movement.
I think people that accept the freeconomic way of thinking have
changed their lifestyle to some lesser or greater extent. I wouldn't
say that it
coincides with the conventional of the western culture.
I agree though that are a bit primitive in their way of thinking,
although I know its founder Mark Boyle might be in a process of
changing his attitude a bit
towards technology.
As for the ZM what they are looking for is something in the longer
term (decades away) so that's why many people will not be able to
accept it.
Some other links that might be useful on the topic:
1) Open Source Ecology: There have been quite a few posts in this list
about this. Marcin Jakubowski is trying to create a self-sustaining
resource based economy
on a local level (check http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSE_Specifications#GVCS_Specifications.2FCore_Values).
2) http://www.ecosharing.net/
3) http://www.favorpals.com/favorpals/jsp/index.jsp
P.S.: The link to the rep rap forum does not work
On Aug 7, 1:28 am, davidc <da...@indigo.uk.to> wrote:
> It still isn't clear to me how many - if any - of the readers here
> espouse the notion of mutual aid, sharing networks, and - more
> generally speaking - working and dealing with and helping each other
> outside a monetary or exchange framework. I've mentioned the idea
> before, and received very little response. Nonetheless, at the risk of
> flogging a dead horse, I wanted to air my recent thoughts.
>
> I'll begin with a non-comprehensive - but hopefully representative -
> overview of what fora there are available for such people at present.
>
> # CURRENT EFFORTS #
>
> On one hand, we have movements like justfortheloveofit.org - which are
> predicated on the romantic, but ultimately childish notion of "low-
> tech", and aspiring to subsist on the level of technology which
> existed at around the time of the bronze-age, etc.. Not many of these
> people are willing to acknowledge the levels of investment, time,
> energy and skill that are required to sustain the sort of lifestyles
> they are accustomed to - and which many of them probably aspire to
> maintain (at least in part).
>
> Other efforts similar to justfortheloveofit (although more forward-
> looking) are neighborgoods.net , sharewiki.org , etc..
>
Rasmus Wikman
I think there is an unnecessary polarisation of closed versus open
where I they can in fact coexist. Traditional industry has a lot to
offer in terms of knowledge, open industry has a lot to offer in terms
of innovation.
What happens in the long run is a political question rather than
economical; ie. what kind of society is the best long term solution
for the middle class? "We the people" always decide.
To make the transition less polarised, what I feel is needed is a
common ground to start from.
While most open initiatives are small scale - hobby like - they only
need the knowhow of traditional industry to become viable.
The fastest way to achieve this as I see it is a common web based
operating system that can be used both for small and large scale, open
and closed.
The most important aspects are;
- A common user interface
- A common data model to handle articles (parts, consumables, etc)
- A common platform for applications to create and edit designs
- A common interface to communicate with (industrial) devices
As I see it the main issue at the moment is to try to get the
hobbyists who play around with Arduinos and other electronical
equipment to realise that they in fact have a key factor in
digitalising (automating) industrial equipment.
It's no longer just a hobby; with a MOSFET and an Arduino you can
control basically ANY equipment through the web; tractors, printers,
cutters, CNCs, welding equpment, anything.
I'm currently working hard on an effort to do this, it's a little
vague at the moment but it's because industry and manufacturing has
such a huge effect on society and I tend to live in the future. It's
nicer there. :)
My initiative is called Ubuntu Online and I will during the autumn
work on getting more detailed descriptions of how it with concentrated
efforts could be used both for consumers and industry.
Rasmus
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en
> .
>
Kostas
http://bricolabs.net/
davidc
generally encouraging. However, things like ecosharing.net and
favorpals.com - although sincere and commendable efforts - are only
really dressing the wounds. What we need - in the long term - is as
compelling an alternative to commerce and exchange as the free
software movement is to proprietary and closed-source software, i.e.
an _industrial-strength_ movement - not just a few geeks experimenting
in hackerspaces (although we probably need that as well). I don't know
of anything like this (except Zeigteist, which - as I intimated above
already - I just can't endorse - sorry (not based on its current
direction anyway)).
As regards opensourceecology.org, I would need to study Marcin
Jakubowski's proposals more closely before venturing comment, but -
given their verbosity - I can't promise that will happen soon. From
what I have read about the project in the past, however, I have never
witnessed anything resembling the sort of commitment to sharing and
mutual aid that I would expect or hope for.
The idea of mutual aid and support needs to be at its _core_ - it
can't be an appendix.
Rasmus, I would need to look at your project more closely to
understand it, or - indeed - its relevance to the discussion. You're
predicating the debate on a dichotomy of open vs. closed - which is
off-topic. What I'm trying to highlight here is the longer-lasting
dichotomy between mutual aid and commerce. I admire your enthusiasm
and respect your effort, but please stay on-topic. We can have a more
effective and mutually rewarding discussion if you do.
Anyway ...
My general sense is that certainly _are_ "engineers with sympathy" out
there. But there are obstacles - such as
1. their time and energy is generally subsumed by "the
system" (repaying their college loans, their mortgage, saving for
their parents' nursing home, etc.) - we are all in this position to a
greater or lesser extent I think;
2. psychological barriers - the possible stigma attached to more-or-
less rejecting commerce in a society where commerce is a sort of god.
Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure we can work through or around these
barriers - if the will is there.
Thanks for the input anyway.
david
Rasmus Wikman
The reason I brought it up because I'm a geek experimenting in
industrial space with very real business and open versus closed is a
very real problem.
While I'm in the printing industry, which often is seen as a light
industry, it's really not. It's not just ink on paper anymore but CNCs
that cut everything from paper to steel, advanced robotics to transfer
materials and fully controlled facilities (in terms of humidity and
temperature).
Currently we have machines from Konica Minolta, Xerox, Duplo, EBA,
Mutoh among others in our business. But as open hardware machinery is
becoming production class, such as the MakerBot, it will pose a threat
to our current equipment suppliers.
Having had long discussions with many of our suppliers, they do not
even understand the basics of the open source paradigm, let alone open
hardware. So while you call us geeks in hackerspace, we have a lot
that the closed equipment providers do not.
It is a common error to assume that quality of software is as high in
industry as in consumer space. But in reality most equipment is still
controlled by software from the late 90's.
This can either be a competetive advantage for open manufacturing or a
bridge between the two.
I get the feeling from you and also from many others in the open
movement that it's an "us versus them", but in reality many of our
equipment suppliers are in fact small companies that work hard to make
great machinery. And all the guys I've met that work for these
companies are very sympathetic.
As I see it, open is just a logical and natural sociological evolution
of business and there doesn't need to be a huge concentrated effort.
It will happen anyway.
I think the best way to get change going is to learn from each other.
Show off the strengths and come up with a good long term solution
together.
And...
...since I'm an engineer with sympathy I want to speed up the
discussion for a long term solution.
I've thought long and hard about it and the common denominator is the
need for open source software. Since the revenue model is in the
physical world, manufacturing doesn't need to apply virtual revenue
models such as transactions, subscriptions and advertising.
Huge leap; if open and closed manufacturing industries decide to
concentrate efforts to make software completely open and free, it will
have a huge effect on economy and in effect society.
And at the end of the day, making industrial equipment is all about
having industrial equipment and the plans to build. If the plans to
create the equipment to create equipment are open source, who's to
stop someone with altruistic intents to do so?
You and me just have to get our hands dirty and do it. Busyness as
usual.
Still off topic?
Rasmus
Dmitry Frolov
project it's usually hard to say is it open or not, and what do you need
to build it(time, knowledge, resources). You need to spend time on
reading long descriptions, forums, comments before you found usefull
information. There's no any documentation standards. What I'd like to
see as a "beginner" is the catalog of projects with minimal information:
wether it's open or not(licences, closed parts or components), time and
knowledge that i need to build it, components/resources and average
costs for it, source files(both software and hardware), some description
and instructions. The type of source files also does matter. I can't say
that the project is 100% open if its sources(i.e. schematics) are
distributed in closed format, so it requires program that I need to pay
for. I realize that not every engineer can or want provide that
information, but it'd save much time for other users and potential
developers.
В Пнд, 08/08/2011 в 14:50 -0700, davidc пишет:
Bryan Bishop
The one more obstacle is the lack of documentation. When you look at the
project it's usually hard to say is it open or not, and what do you need
to build it(time, knowledge, resources). You need to spend time on
reading long descriptions, forums, comments before you found usefull
information. There's no any documentation standards. What I'd like to
see as a "beginner" is the catalog of projects with minimal information:
wether it's open or not(licences, closed parts or components), time and
knowledge that i need to build it, components/resources and average
costs for it, source files(both software and hardware), some description
and instructions. The type of source files also does matter. I can't say
that the project is 100% open if its sources(i.e. schematics) are
distributed in closed format, so it requires program that I need to pay
for. I realize that not every engineer can or want provide that
information, but it'd save much time for other users and potential
developers.
Rasmus Wikman
I think you are absolutely correct!
What would be needed is a platform for creating designs and publishing
them. And only open source so that anyone can "fork" and improve
designs easily.
I'm trying my best to achieve this, I've made a prototype for a web
based Adobe InDesign clone (attached, don't know if that's allowed)
and combined with svg-edit (comparable to Adobe Illustrator) it would
give open sourcers the power of industrial design.
Further on, with for example three.js, also 3D designs could be
implemented directly online. Without desktop, without costly software.
Trying to piece it all together in Ubuntu Online.
Rasmus
http://code.google.com/p/svg-edit
https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js
http://www.ubuntuonline.me
Christian Siefkes
davidc wrote:
> So, I'm willing to stick my neck out and ask ...
> Is there anyone here who wants to see a mutual aid, non-exchange
> economy evolve
we've been in contact about this before--I'm very interested in such
developments. I've recently published a paper about "The Emergence of
Benefit-driven Production" (my contribution for OKCon 2011) which is
available at http://www.keimform.de/2011/benefit-driven-production/ .
> - and agrees that there is effectively nothing being
> done about it at the moment?
I think that's a bit harsh, though I would agree that the development of
physical peer production is still in a very early stage, dominated by
toy efforts and experiments but not yet producing much that's very useful.
But that can quickly change and I suppose that such an experimental phase
is a necessary step of developments.
Do you know the Demonetize initiative at http://demonetize.it/ ? It's not
as practically focused as the openmanufacturing, but you could join the
mailing list there and find lots of people interested in money-less,
non-exchange economics. (Though people there come from very different
backgrounds and some of them are from Zeitgeist, too.) There is also a
blog/planet which you could use to publish articles on these topics.
(Contact Stefan Meretz or me if you want to do so.)
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- chri...@siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
I love deadlines. I like that swooshing sound they make when they pass by.
-- Douglas Adams
davidc
obviously in an important issue, but it's not I want to focus on here.
@Christian: thanks for the link - interesting. I'll try to read your
article shortly.
What might be an interesting preliminary experiment in this regard is
an investment in a DMLS machine (whether we build it or get one pre-
made) - or something with similar capabilities. E.g. we use it to
produce parts for eligible individuals at cost, and - perhaps over
time - evolve these efforts to provide a service similar to
shapeways.com or emachineshop.com or quickparts.com - but where
decisions are based on something other than monetary considerations.
Patrick Anderson
> Is there anyone here who wants to see
> a mutual aid, non-exchange economy
I'm sure we will all enjoy the result.
But how can we share the costs of production
without passing tokens?
... Is it an "order of operations" problem?
Notice when those who need the food
are the co-owners of the field, then they
do not *buy* the product, because, of
course, they already own it.
Notice when those who can work in the
field will commit to work in the future in
return for being allowed to live in the
Aggregate, then they do not receive a
*wage*, because they already have
their reward (for as long as they uphold
that commitment to work).
When a crowd owns a dairy, part of
them will apply skill there, and the others
will apply skills somewhere else in the
Aggregate to compensate
So Wages are eliminated by having workers
commit early to solve problems within the
aggregate in return for a Basic Outcome
supplied as a result of all the other workers
upholding their commitments to supply
their own skillset when needed by others.
Imagine a non-profit corporation purchases land, tools and raw
materials to build a closed-loop permaculture 'commons'.
By closed-loop I mean the entire operation has a required minimum
complexity because it must supply all workers with all food, shelter,
health care, transport, etc.
We attract people who are willing to work for nothing more than a
nice, free house and all the organic food they can eat.
If we can a doctor and a dentist, then we have health and dental insurance.
The trade and barter are optional when commit Sources and Skills *early*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent talks about how the
transaction is "short-circuited".
Anarkist
As a mutualist anarchist I definately espouse the notions of mutal aid
and sharing and have been seeking to participate in such initiative
for several years, but I have yet to encounter anyone carrying out
that aim in any systematic way.
I've taken part in a programme involving organic agriculture for the
past few years. Its called the WWOOF scheme (Willing Workers on
Organic Farms), whereby participating hosts (generally small farmers,
eco-villages, and owners of holistic health retreats) provide free
accomodation and food in exchange for work.It enables these hosts to
"employ" people to do much needed work, who otherwise couldn't afford
to pay minimum wage rates and income taxes. I think a industrial
venture with the principles of mutual aid and sharing could bootstrap
off the WWOOF scheme, perhaps being incorporated into a farmstead and
tap into a massive labour pool of primarily well educated, highly
schooled, idealistic young people from all over the world. The WWOOF
scheme has a well known international profile, and I personally have
worked with a broad range of people with a diverse array of skills and
backgrounds that due to the state of the global economy are
underutilized if not going untapped. I've worked with environmental
engineers, architects, civil engineers, skilled tradesmen, economists,
an electric engineer involved with the French Space Programme,
filmmakers, agroecologists, marine biologists ... I would love to be
involved in a project that took advantage of the untapped potential of
these young people and channeled it into activities that are socially
and environmentally beneficial, but are not deemed economically
viable. Mutal Aid and Sharing would be a welcome bypoduct of that.
http://www.wwoof.org/
A few years ago I came acros a book called Design for the Real World
by Victor Papenek, which was originally published in the 1970s, where
the author, a former Professor at Perdue University, espoused his
perspective on the nature of the then contemporary design industry and
his views on the social responsibility of product designers. One
element of his book that really excited me was his vision of the
establishment of a educational instititution teaching a
multidisciplainary, integrated cirriculum devoted to seek solutions to
the many social and environmental problems that afflicted and continue
to afflict the world to this day.
"I envision it less as a school than as a working environment. Here,
young people would 'learn' through working on real design problems
rather than artificially
constructed exercises. Such a working environment would, of necessity,
be small in size, at no time accepting more than thirty 'students' at
most. Part, although a minor part, of its function would be to serve
as a prototype for similar environmental design workshops to be set up
as
an interacting global network.
The young people coming to this first, prototypal school would come
freely from all parts of the world. They would stay for a year or
longer and participate in the simultaneous learning and practising of
integrated design. These young men and women would be of varied
backgrounds, differing age groups, with study and work experiences in
many different fields. At all times they would operate as a
multidisciplinary design team. Their work would be socially relevant
and always 'real'. By this I mean that, rather than setting to work on
theoretical problems chosen only for their similarities to problems
dealt with in professional design offices (as is done in all schools),
members of the team would direct their attention to the actual needs
of society. In other words, all the work carried on in this milieu
would be anticipatory.
Such an environment would satisfy a major social need not filled
today: the creation of a body of designers trained in the skills that
the future will demand of them. Just as astronauts and cosmonauts are
taught skills that may be demanded of them months or years hence on
the moon or Mars, the design team too will have to prepare itself for
the social challenges of integrated comprehensive design that the
future will bring. The solutions of design problems will be turned
over to concerned individuals, social groups, governments, or trans-
national organisations. As this entire concept of an experimental
design environment is thought of as non-profit-earning, any money
'earned' through solving these real problems would be directly
returned to the work group as tools, machinery, devices, structures,
and land. We only have to examine learning situations which people
find rewarding, 'fun', and in which they learn optimally, to see why
the small size of this group is important.
The emphasis is on a small teacher- student ratio, a mutually
interactive and mutually reinforcing group, and the action of this
group within the environment. Most importantly, perhaps, the 'teacher'
possesses and practises the identical skills which the 'students' are
learning. He is never a remote professor, tied up within the ivory
tower of his own re- search (as is the case in the universities). Nor
is he a 'teaching assistant' or graduate student so busy with his own
studies that he can give only scant attention to his students. There
is no question that teachers (especially in design) must be constantly
involved in its practice. But only a system such as the one proposed
here will eliminate the false divorce between practice and teaching.
All members of this team would live and work communally. Their
existence would be eased through the whole concept of 'communal
sharing': that is, consuming more, but owning less. A representative
group of thirty present-day university students will serve as one
small example: they own, on the average, twenty six automobiles,
thirty-one radios, and fifteen high-fidelity systems. Without
belabouring the obvious, such a capital investment in transient
consumer goods would eliminate itself. While expediency would demand
the starting of such a
'school' in a series of old buildings, a farm, or the like; the
eventual buildings would be the responsibility of the team. Temporary
domes, information-input cubes (a la Ken Isaacs), and the constructing
of more permanent working rooms, sleeping spaces, and social spaces
would provide team members with valuable experiences in a living-
working environment - one that is constantly changing, constantly
being
questioned and experimentally restructured through their own thinking
and their own labour.
Their 'curriculum' would be a loosely woven mesh of those activities
and skills needed for creative problem-solving. There could be no
separation between their 'work' and their leisure- time activities.
The newest methods of data-processing, film- making, etc., would be
available to the team. Such a centre of design research and planning
would have to be able to offer its hospitality freely to specialists
from many disciplines. Such concerned workers could then be drawn into
the working and living experiences of the team for a few days, weeks,
or even a year. Because of the experimental nature of the various
structures making up the environment, such a centre would best be
located in the country, by close enough to major urban centres to
participate in studies internship work, and experiences in the city
environment. What is studied, and how, would evolve organically out of
the needs of society. There could never be a static 'plan of study'."
playpen.meraka.csir.co.za/~acdc/education/Dr...7.../designvictor.pdf
I personally believe that monetary exchange has a role to play in the
future, but the extent to which it dominates in modern social
relations is a historical anomaly. The form that most exchanges took
prior to the modern era had their basis in the gift economy. People
could rely the implicit promise of reciprocity, because most people
lived in intimate contact with one another and with constant contact
came easy and quick assessment of the other's trustworthiness. Markets
have always existed on the periphery, because not all goods and
services could be provided in a local area. The more distant the
relationship, the more formalized the mechanisms of exchange became.
http://p2pfoundation.net/Gift_Economy#The_gift_economy.2C_not_barter.2C_preceded_the_market_economy
http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#A_Proper_Place_for_Markets
http://www.freeebay.net/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52
On Aug 7, 10:28 am, davidc <da...@indigo.uk.to> wrote:
> It still isn't clear to me how many - if any - of the readers here
> espouse the notion of mutual aid, sharing networks, and - more
> generally speaking - working and dealing with and helping each other
> outside a monetary or exchange framework. I've mentioned the idea
> before, and received very little response. Nonetheless, at the risk of
> flogging a dead horse, I wanted to air my recent thoughts.
>
> I'll begin with a non-comprehensive - but hopefully representative -
> overview of what fora there are available for such people at present.
>
> # CURRENT EFFORTS #
>
> On one hand, we have movements like justfortheloveofit.org - which are
> predicated on the romantic, but ultimately childish notion of "low-
> tech", and aspiring to subsist on the level of technology which
> existed at around the time of the bronze-age, etc.. Not many of these
> people are willing to acknowledge the levels of investment, time,
> energy and skill that are required to sustain the sort of lifestyles
> they are accustomed to - and which many of them probably aspire to
> maintain (at least in part).
>
> Other efforts similar to justfortheloveofit (although more forward-
> looking) are neighborgoods.net , sharewiki.org , etc..
>
davidc
> As a mutualist anarchist I definately espouse the notions of mutal aid
> and sharing and have been seeking to participate in such initiative
> for several years, but I have yet to encounter anyone carrying out
> that aim in any systematic way.
The primary reservation I have about mutualism is the same one as was
expressed by Proudhon's forerunner - William Godwin:
"Shall we then introduce barter and exchange? By no means. The moment
I require any further reason for suppplying you, than the _cogency of
your claim_, the moment, in addition to the dictates of benevolence, I
demand a prospect of reciprocal advantage to myself, there is an end
of that political justice and pure society of which we treat" [William
Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Book VIII].
> I've taken part in a programme involving organic agriculture for the
> past few years. Its called the WWOOF scheme (Willing Workers on
> Organic Farms), whereby participating hosts (generally small farmers,
> eco-villages, and owners of holistic health retreats) provide free
> accomodation and food in exchange for work.
(A slightly pedantic point perhaps - but sometimes semantics is
important.)
> It enables these hosts to
> "employ" people to do much needed work, who otherwise couldn't afford
> to pay minimum wage rates and income taxes.
sound like exploitation. Now, I'm sure that in many - or hopefully
most - cases it isn't, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of the scheme.
> I think a industrial
> venture with the principles of mutual aid and sharing could bootstrap
> off the WWOOF scheme, perhaps being incorporated into a farmstead and
> tap into a massive labour pool of primarily well educated, highly
> schooled, idealistic young people from all over the world. The WWOOF
> scheme has a well known international profile, and I personally have
> worked with a broad range of people with a diverse array of skills and
> backgrounds that due to the state of the global economy are
> underutilized if not going untapped. I've worked with environmental
> engineers, architects, civil engineers, skilled tradesmen, economists,
> an electric engineer involved with the French Space Programme,
> filmmakers, agroecologists, marine biologists ... I would love to be
> involved in a project that took advantage of the untapped potential of
> these young people and channeled it into activities that are socially
> and environmentally beneficial, but are not deemed economically
> viable. Mutal Aid and Sharing would be a welcome bypoduct of that.http://www.wwoof.org/
"by-product" as much as the foundation.
Anyway, my perception is that most people involved in the WWOOF scheme
are probably _not_ interested in the idea. A lot of them - as far as I
can discern - aspire to set up "green" businesses and so on - and
leave it at that (i.e. not contribute anything to the development of a
mutual aid network).
So, to be honest ...
My first thoughts are that the WWOOF would probably _not_ be a good
basis to start from.
> A few years ago I came acros a book called Design for the Real World
> by Victor Papenek, which was originally published in the 1970s, where
> the author, a former Professor at Perdue University, espoused his
> perspective on the nature of the then contemporary design industry and
> his views on the social responsibility of product designers. One
> element of his book that really excited me was his vision of the
> establishment of a educational instititution teaching a
> multidisciplainary, integrated cirriculum devoted to seek solutions to
> the many social and environmental problems that afflicted and continue
> to afflict the world to this day.
> I personally believe that monetary exchange has a role to play in the
> future
about. Perhaps it will be a bit like software usage. Some people
obviously feel that proprietary software has a role to play in their
lives - and that it perhaps always will. Others are obviously getting
by fine without it.
So people can have a choice - no one's coercing them to choose one or
the other.
> The form that most exchanges took
> prior to the modern era had their basis in the gift economy. People
> could rely the implicit promise of reciprocity, because most people
> lived in intimate contact with one another and with constant contact
> came easy and quick assessment of the other's trustworthiness. Markets
> have always existed on the periphery, because not all goods and
> services could be provided in a local area.
or genuine mutual aid on this basis? I don't buy it - sorry!
If your heart isn't in the idea, that's fine - but please don't cloak
your disinterest with vague hypotheses concerning the trajectory of
human history and progress.
I'm well aware that most people have no interest in the idea - but
(like open-source software) I don't think it's success is contingent
on a "majority vote". It just needs critical mass. Will it get it? I
have no idea.
david
Christian Siefkes
> What might be an interesting preliminary experiment in this regard is
> an investment in a DMLS machine (whether we build it or get one pre-
> made) - or something with similar capabilities. E.g. we use it to
> produce parts for eligible individuals at cost, and - perhaps over
> time - evolve these efforts to provide a service similar to
> shapeways.com or emachineshop.com or quickparts.com - but where
> decisions are based on something other than monetary considerations.
Interesting idea, but where to get the tool(s) from? Do you know how much a
DMLS machine costs? I didn't find much on that, but
http://www.rapidtoday.com/rqm.html says: "a DMLS machine costs $600,000 USD
and up". So I guess, buying is very much out of the question.
As for building one, that would be a lovely challenge for the
RepRap/Fab@Home/etc. community, but I suppose it will take many years until
such an endeavor could be successful.
Another question is whether and when additive manufacturing is indeed the
right tool for the job--I suspect there will be many areas where more
traditional approaches such as injection molding, casting, machining etc.
will be superior for a long time.
Still, in general I agree that the organization of community-based
productive infrastructures is the right thing to do and one of the major
challenges of our time. That's one of the topics in my texts. I'll look
forward to any project that makes progress in that area...
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- chri...@siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
Whenever anyone says, "theoretically," they really mean, "not really."
-- Dave Parnas
davidc
On Aug 13, 7:23 pm, Christian Siefkes <christ...@siefkes.net> wrote:
> Interesting idea, but where to get the tool(s) from? Do you know how much a
>
> As for building one, that would be a lovely challenge for the
> RepRap/Fab@Home/etc. community, but I suppose it will take many years until
> such an endeavor could be successful.
Reprap community (I know nothing about Fab@Home) are
1. the MetalicaRap project - which has actually chosen to focus on
EBM (Electron Beam Melting) rather than DMLS (Direct Metal Laser
Sintering), and
2. more low-profile efforts by certain members to use high-power IR
diodes for sintering (the specific materials they can sinter would
depend on the power of the diode I suppose?).
Other readers involved with RepRap are welcome to correct me though.
These sort of efforts - as you probably guessed - are still in the
very early stages though.
The authors of the MetalicaRap project are aiming for a design that
could be built for about the cost of a used car. More specifically,
their design criteria states that:
- the "cost for parts which it cannot itself print plus the raw
material for printable parts < [must be less than] the cost of a used
car" [ http://www.reprap.org/wiki/MetalicaRap ].
Whether or not they will actually achieve that is another thing of
course.
But thinking in a wider context ...
In the long-run, and ideally, the people providing us with the raw
materials and so on wouldn't necessarily be operating on a monetary/
exchange basis either, would they? So, although costs would probably
be substantial regardless of which specific design was used, perhaps
it's fruitful to practice thinking in terms of time and effort and
resources rather than monetary cost?
> Another question is whether and when additive manufacturing is indeed the
> right tool for the job--I suspect there will be many areas where more
> traditional approaches such as injection molding, casting, machining etc.
> will be superior for a long time.
Won't one of the most viable ways to produce a mold in the future be
to use an additive manufacturing technique? ;-)
david
Anarkist
Yes Proudhon is one of my inspirations, but I'm not dogmatic. My views
are also informed by the likes of Paul Lafarge, Peter Kropotkin, and
William Morris.
"there is an end of that political justice and pure society of which
we treat"
narrow, comfortable, priviledged background of these primarily middle
class social reformers. There is no such thing as a "pure" society.
Human societies and individual human relationships which are their
microcosms, are far too dynamic, chaotic, and downright irrational to
presume to pontificate about let alone create any such thing.
But if it's provided "in exchange", it's not "free" - is it?
> (A slightly pedantic point perhaps - but sometimes semantics is
Well for someone accustomed to dealing with valueing things in terms
of money its free.
"I don't mean to be rude, but the way you've phrased it here makes it
sound like exploitation. Now, I'm sure that in many - or hopefully
most - cases it isn't, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of the
scheme."
but WWOOFers are free to leave the host and they lose nothing in doing
so. One could argue theres an element of risk in open source software
and participatory culture. How much monetary value that corporations
have appropriated by taking advantage of the labours of the thousands
of contributors of open source software and youtube video makers?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anarkist
"I'm sorry. Are you trying to dismiss the possibility of a gift
economy or genuine mutual aid on this basis? I don't buy it - sorry!"
As I unequivocally stated, the majority of exchanges took place within
a the framework of a gift economy, but there are boundaries dictated
by the nature of human relations and human nature itself. However we
can debate whether we can precisely define human nature, its
inarguable we are all imperfect creatures. Its natural to make cost/
benefit calculations and skew them in our favour as much as possible.
But to counteract this human societies have evolved a diverse array of
mechanism to discourage errant behaviour and ameliorate the most
harmfworst outcomes. A society with a gift economy typically relies on
various informal social controls such as social norms, conventions,
sanctions to ensure compliance with the prevailing social contract.
All of these depend on intimate contact between people so as people
are able to see that everyone is abiding by the rules, informal or
not. This establishes trust which allows the system to work. With
distance, it no longer works. Societies such as hunter gatherer
societies have a tendency of being far less productive than ours, they
literally can't afford to support those who wish to shirk work.
Exchange mechanism such as barter and "currencies" evolved out of the
necessity to trade for items which couldn't be produced in the
locality, but since the trade participants lacked the intimate
knowledge of each others trustworthiness, the implicit promise of
reciprocity was lacking. A form of immediate concrete settlement of
the trade need to be developed to facilitate the transaction.
Sorry, feel good fuzziness isn't what motivates me to want to develop
an alternative to the prevailing system. I deal in hard
practicalities. I oppose the current system, because its harmful for
both people and the planet. It institutionalizes dependancy and
hierarchy, necessitates an intrusive and interfering State, destroys
social bonds and communities, fosters egregious inequality, enormously
increases the cost of living..., A gift economy will solve many of
these issues, but its advocates, but be aware of its limits.
davidc
> How am I dismissing the possibility of a gift economy in what I wrote?
> As I unequivocally stated, the majority of exchanges took place within
> a the framework of a gift economy, but there are boundaries dictated
> by the nature of human relations and human nature itself.
that you were dismissing the idea on the basis that it has never
worked beyond the level of the tribe - which I would consider
implausible.
> A society with a gift economy typically relies on
> various informal social controls such as social norms, conventions,
> sanctions to ensure compliance with the prevailing social contract.
> All of these depend on intimate contact between people so as people
> are able to see that everyone is abiding by the rules, informal or
> not. This establishes trust which allows the system to work. With
> distance, it no longer works.
I do believe that this can only work amongst a limited number of
people - and that discretion needs to be exercised. That's the first
thing I'd like to clarify.
But the notion of "distance" in relationships has quite different
connotations in the here-and-now than it did in the historical
contexts you refer to, wouldn't you agree? E.g., I suppose that many
people living in densely-populated areas know more about their
internet contacts than they do about most of the people in their own
neighborhood.
So, generally speaking, people's trustworthiness has to be somehow
appraised, yes. But this doesn't necessarily mean that we need to know
them _personally_, does it? Aren't there ways of ensuring that
people's behaviour meets certain expectations without knowing them
_personally_? E.g. couldn't we just accept the testimony of an
associate - thereby allowing the trust to _propagate_?
Those aren't posed as rhetorical questions, but I'm not pessimistic
about the answers. The verification systems of networks like
couchsurfing and other hospitality networks are a phenomenon which we
could learn from.
> Exchange mechanism such as barter and "currencies" evolved out of the
> necessity to trade for items which couldn't be produced in the
> locality, but since the trade participants lacked the intimate
> knowledge of each others trustworthiness, the implicit promise of
> reciprocity was lacking. A form of immediate concrete settlement of
> the trade need to be developed to facilitate the transaction.
amongst the majority of people. But how those who participate deal
with "non-members" - whether via some or other exchange mechanism, and
whether or not they still deal in monetary terms with certain people -
isn't really my primary concern here.
I hope that at least partially clarifies my views.
david
John Griessen
> couldn't we just accept the testimony of an
> associate - thereby allowing the trust to_propagate_?
Only as far as your experience tells you. The standard definitions of trust and
associate n. form are... not even the same form, so it needs a lot of interpretation.
associated==trusted !NOT!
Figuring some way to trust people over the internet is important
to any ideas of community development. Because the internet is the biggest connector
ever. And the internet is the biggest source of theft ever also.
Anarkist
that you were dismissing the idea on the basis that it has never
worked beyond the level of the tribe - which I would consider
implausible."
believe that a gift economy was workable beyond the scale of tribes,
but I think it would likely have occured between tribes with prolonged
contact.
I do agree that Internet expands a person's social network to an
unprecedented degree, which has both positive and negative
implications. I've being pondering the possibilities that the Internet
and social media offers in terms of facilitating the development of
alternative forms of exchange for the past several years and I've
given the issues of reputation and trust much consideration. Alot of
my thoughts were stimulated by a White Paper on the topic of Augmented
Social Networks. Its a form of social network that leverages the power
of the Internet and online communities to improve outcomes for people
and the environment. Well worth the read.
http://asn.planetwork.net/
Thanks for the clarification. I think for an economy genuinely based
on sharing and mutual aid to develop, I think we first need to
articulate a well thought out transition process, from the one we have
now. The economy that we have now has diverged so sharply into the the
hyperindividualist, fiercely competitive, greed motivated, inequality
creating form that its now in, that it will be an enormous struggle to
convince people that we offer a feasible substitute.
Perhaps a good starting point could be convincing people to commit to
dedicate a portion of their time to working on initiatives that foster
mutual aid and envisioning ways to meet the needs of those who may not
be as fortunate as themselves and whos needs aren't being met. Its an
idea inspired by Victor Papanek I discussed above.
http://kymmenykset.org/
I really hope you can get something concrete off the ground and I
certainly would be pleased to offer any input or assistance I can.
Obviously given the WWOOF experience I've had for the past few years,
I have a certain degree of knowledge and expertise to offer. I hope
this can be just the beginning of a long dialogue on the matter.
regards,
James
Dmitry Frolov
My point is that you can trust somebody only if you know him personally.
But if you trust somebody(A) who you know, and he trusts somebody(B) who
he knows, it is considered you trust B to some extent.
davidc
posts. Maybe we could continue these discussions elsewhere (see
below ...)?
I'm conscious that there isn't a large degree of scope for these type
of discussions on this list - and I appreciate the forbearance of
those who aren't interested or don't have the time to read them.
So I will quite possibly set up an independent discussion forum at
some stage, which will be devoted more-or-less exclusively to these
ideas. And I would very much hope for it to be not just a forum for
abstract theorizing but also a platform for concrete action and
experiment, and - in the long-term - change.
What would people think is more suitable - a mailing-list or a forum?
Personally I would lean towards a forum because it gives people the
opportunity to revise their contributions - but it's probably not a
big deal either way.
If there was a forum devoted to these ideas already I wouldn't feel
the need to do this, but I don't think there is.
david
P.S. John: I suppose you are right, but by using the term "associate",
in this context, I essentially mean a "trusted acquaintance". Thus,
Dmitry's second point is more or less correct.
Christian Siefkes
davidc wrote:
> As far as I can discern, the primary efforts in this area within the
> Reprap community (I know nothing about Fab@Home) are
> 1. the MetalicaRap project - which has actually chosen to focus on
> EBM (Electron Beam Melting) rather than DMLS (Direct Metal Laser
> Sintering), and
> 2. more low-profile efforts by certain members to use high-power IR
> diodes for sintering (the specific materials they can sinter would
> depend on the power of the diode I suppose?).
> Other readers involved with RepRap are welcome to correct me though.
>
> These sort of efforts - as you probably guessed - are still in the
> very early stages though.
that's interesting, I'll look at it more closely...
> But thinking in a wider context ...
> In the long-run, and ideally, the people providing us with the raw
> materials and so on wouldn't necessarily be operating on a monetary/
> exchange basis either, would they? So, although costs would probably
> be substantial regardless of which specific design was used, perhaps
> it's fruitful to practice thinking in terms of time and effort and
> resources rather than monetary cost?
I very much agree with that. I just had the (apparently mistaken) impression
that you were talking about "what we could do now", not about the long run.
> > right tool for the job--I suspect there will be many areas where more
> > traditional approaches such as injection molding, casting, machining
> etc.
> > will be superior for a long time.
>
> I don't know, but ...
> Won't one of the most viable ways to produce a mold in the future be
> to use an additive manufacturing technique? ;-)
That may be very well true :-) I'm just skeptical of the frequent "one
technology to produce (almost) everything" claim of some additive
manufacturing proponents.
Best
Christian
PS. I didn't quite understand why you talked about moving parts of this
discussion elsewhere--did someone express annoyance about it? *If* you
decide to move it elsewhere (and I currently don't see why you should), I
would strongly suggest a mailing list instead of a forum. I, for one, don't
have the time to follow or participate in discussions that take part in forums.
If it's about how to socially organize without money, the demonetize list
would be a very good fit.
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- chri...@siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
A bug is a test case you haven't written yet.
davidc
On Aug 20, 5:47 pm, Christian Siefkes <christ...@siefkes.net> wrote:
> If it's about how to socially organize without money, the demonetize list
> would be a very good fit.
discussion there - for the time being at least.
Any relevant developments can perhaps be shared here when appropriate.
Rapatan
MetalicaRap s main aim was to make metal parts as strong as
traditional methods and be able to print the solar cells required for
near free power, at a reasonable speed hours not weeks and usable
size, on a normal single phase power supply. Except in steel lasers
are between10 and 50 times worse at being absorbed as heat than
electron beams as so much energy is reflected. To print at reasnable
speeds about 600 W is needed entering the metal, so this is achieved
with 720 watt electron gun but a laser of at least 7200 Watts is
needed. So lasers are great for jewelry and steel parts. If you want
to support the project we are crowd funding via paypal at the site.
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Aug 13, 7:23 pm, Christian Siefkes <christ...@siefkes.net> wrote:
>
> > Interesting idea, but where to get the tool(s) from? Do you know how much a
> > DMLS machine costs? I didn't find much on that, buthttp://www.rapidtoday.com/rqm.htmlsays:"a DMLS machine costs $600,000 USD
> > and up". So I guess, buying is very much out of the question.
>
> > As for building one, that would be a lovely challenge for the
> > RepRap/Fab@Home/etc. community, but I suppose it will take many years until
> > such an endeavor could be successful.
>
> As far as I can discern, the primary efforts in this area within the
> Reprap community (I know nothing about Fab@Home) are
> Sintering), and
> 2. more low-profile efforts by certain members to use high-power IR
> diodes for sintering (the specific materials they can sinter would
> depend on the power of the diode I suppose?).
> Other readers involved with RepRap are welcome to correct me though.
>
> These sort of efforts - as you probably guessed - are still in the
> very early stages though.
>