RE: Concerns about "Politics" being discussed on-list. A funny of hopefully "flameproofing" value is:
Oren Beck
my humor based shot at it- please do share! Here's my take on the
concept. If someone's got a problem with "me" for this.. Tell me so
OFF LIST ok?
Whatever one's personal place on the many Political reference tools
may be, It's often amusingly observed that we can safely apply a humor
tool of verbal deconstructionism.
Poly=Many
Ticks=Bloodsucking Parasites
And from that pithy humor?
Open Manufacturing ethic might eventually reach consensus of becoming
100% Apolitical= Politically Neutral.
So our mutual goal of an Open Arena for Manufacture might better avoid
conflicts with the many bloodsucking parasites sadly infesting our
social/economic landscapes. With a closing, even more "Flame
Supressant" thought.
We've all got our personal and cherished social/political stances as
individuals that may be best mutually respected by having this forum
consider being a neutral zone.
Paul D. Fernhout
> IF anyone's got a more elegant way of "Flameproofing" this forum than
> my humor based shot at it- please do share! Here's my take on the
> concept. If someone's got a problem with "me" for this.. Tell me so
> OFF LIST ok?
>
>
> Whatever one's personal place on the many Political reference tools
> may be, It's often amusingly observed that we can safely apply a humor
> tool of verbal deconstructionism.
>
> Poly=Many
>
> Ticks=Bloodsucking Parasites
:-)
Still, personally, I would not suggest my new Representative is a
parasite even at a salary approaching US$200K a year, full medical
benefits for life, and so on. Judging just from his career of 24 years
in the Army (including in teaching roles about American Politics), he is
almost certainly a man with a lot of integrity who means to do his best
by his country in what will be a very time consuming demanding position.
I can respect that, even if I can guess about some (or even many)
specific issues I may disagree with relative to him (single payer health
care which he does not need personally?).
It can be pretty hard to figure out what the "tick" is sometimes. One
decorated Marine Major General had some suggestions:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Maybe he should have said, "Empire is a racket"?
> And from that pithy humor?
>
> Open Manufacturing ethic might eventually reach consensus of becoming
> 100% Apolitical= Politically Neutral.
>
> So our mutual goal of an Open Arena for Manufacture might better avoid
> conflicts with the many bloodsucking parasites sadly infesting our
> social/economic landscapes. With a closing, even more "Flame
> Supressant" thought.
>
> We've all got our personal and cherished social/political stances as
> individuals that may be best mutually respected by having this forum
> consider being a neutral zone.
I appreciate your point here, and it is a good thing to keep in mind, to
focus on our commonalities (making stuff) than differences (divisive
aspects of politics). Still, an open manufacturing mailing list (at
least this one) is not, say, a tennis club or birdhouse-building club or
something like that. We're talking about doing stuff that could remake
the entire landscape of much of the global economy (even if it may
involve tennis or birdhouses, incidentally. :-)
We also talk about other things, including our identity as human beings
(or groups of humans) if some of the DIY-Bio people or Transhumanist
types keep up what they are up to with open manufacturing. And, for the
most part, people are doing all this as volunteers.
It's hard to imagine that remaking the global economy (or deep aspects
of our individual or community identity) could be done without some
political discussions creeping in at some point or discussions of our
motivations and aesthetic preferences.
Of course, I can see the argument for keeping a low profile when you are
changing the world a lot. :-) But even then, we should know what we are
doing and why, right? Even if we did not go out of our way to broadcast
that others beyond working in public via open mailing lists and so on?
So, avoiding politics in discussions sounds good in theory (especially
among engineering types), but it practice it may not be possible, or
even wise, even given a possible cost or risk that you rightly imply.
I don't expect many people to read the rest of this, so I'll copy a
point from the very end up here:
So, without advocating any particular political party, I feel it
reasonable to ask two questions:
1. What is a broadly shared and catchy open manufacturing "message and
philosophy"?
2. How does that message connect in a positive way to current political
trends in various countries?
The rest of this tries to outline why those are sensible questions to ask.
=== should engineers get involved with politics?
Consider this recent comment at eetimes:
"Thunder in the valley"
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4210479/Thunder-in-the-valley-
"patrick.mannion 11/6/2010 1:38 PM EDT
The degree to which change will happen is proportional to the degree to
which engineers get involved in the political process. At the last SIA
dinner I attended the speakers practically begged the audience to get
involved more in politics. Engineers tend to eschew politics and dismiss
politicians. You don't see too many in Congress that are EEs. Mostly
they're lawyers or doctors. Mr. Ottelini asking for reduced taxes is
good. But real change will only happen when EEs
A: Start leveraging their collective strength and
B: Start running for office and making logical changes from within.
In many ways engineers show their intelligence by not get involved in
politics. But we may be too smart for our own good."
Too smart for our own good? I guess there are several ways that can be
true. I've probably tried several of them. :-)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harvey
"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world,
Elwood, you must be," � she always called me Elwood � "In this world,
you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was
smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."
Another eetimes comment links to:
"There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician..."
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
"When Barack Obama met Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, at the G20
summit in London, it was an encounter not just between two presidents,
but also between two professions and mindsets. A lawyer, trained to
argue from first principles and haggle over words, was speaking to an
engineer, who knew how to build physical structures and keep them
intact. ..."
Might explain why China can "get it up" when the USA can't. :-)
Contrast:
"China: Ark Hotel Construction time lapse building 15 stories in 2 days"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0DSihggio
"This is the first building in human history which combines almost all
environmental friendly, comfortable and secure elements. So, we call it:
Sustainable Building"
With:
"US Cancels Necessary ISS Programs "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4luFBrUes
"European space officials are fuming that short-sighted US policies
threaten NASAs ability to maintain a presence on the International Space
Station. First the American government decided to end the space shuttle
program in 2010, five years before replacement craft will be ready to
ferry astronauts and supplies to the ISS. NASA requested an additional
one billion dollars a year to speed up the development of the Orion
spacecraft, but this was denied."
Or, in general:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1
"Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress,
it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing
worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which
is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its
drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of
people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one
party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important
policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. ..."
So, frankly, talking (serious) politics in the USA is probably mostly
about changing somehow from one-party rule. :-)
=== can professional decision making ever be free of politics?
There is no question "professionals" try to be above politics, but consider:
"Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the
Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives" by Jeff Schmidt
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/radio-reading/
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff
Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very
identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals
are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political,
and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and
maintain strict �ideological discipline.�"
So, according to an editor of Physics Today, "professional work is
inherently political". Of course, he got fired for saying that. :-)
The book is read aloud at the links above, but here is an example, from
the last chapter, which mentions how we are kept apart by a system that
divides to control and talks about how to resist it:
"Resisting Indoctrination"
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/radio-reading/ch14a.mp3
Expressing yourself politically (even in problematical ways) is at least
a step towards resistance, even if it is true that everyone has a lot of
constraints on them and deviants are generally punished in one way or
another (at least until there is a large movement of related ideas).
http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
Still, it's true that collective action ultimately is more where
strength lies. So, you are right that to the extent talking politics
takes away from collective strength, it's a bad thing. But, on the other
hard, collective strength can come from shared values, and it may take
some effort to explore them and their implications.
The recent article from publicknowledge.org talked about the need for
the open hardware movement to engage political decision makers about
related issues. Here is the part I tried to quote before but had
problems cutting and pasting from the PDF file:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up
"That is why it is critical for today�s 3D printing community, tucked
away in garages, hackerspaces, and labs, to keep a vigilant eye on these
policy debates as they grow. There will be a time when impacted legacy
industries demand some sort of DMCA for 3D printing. If the 3D printing
community waits until that day to organize, it will be too late.
Instead, the community must work to educate policy makers and the public
about the benefits of widespread access. That way, when legacy
industries portray 3D printing as a hobby for pirates and scofflaws,
their claims will fall on ears too wise to destroy the new new thing."
=== can topics be divisive but still connect to big pictures?
As far as flameproofing, I'm not sure there is anything that is free of
politics, in the sense that politics is about allocating resources,
costs, and benefits, as is a lot of engineering when you think about it
(in terms of costs and performance tradeoffs).
Still, sure, one can talk about what a "neutral zone" looks like, sure,
and it's a great ideal. I can imagine that Thingiverse or Make Magazine
forums or 100K garages or whatever are probably fairly politics neutral.
I don't track them closely so I don't know what they are up to right now.
One could almost certainly point to divisive topics (like abortion, or
gay marriage, etc.) where discussing them really isn't like to move open
manufacturing forward much (and almost certainly would move it backwards
compared to discussing them elsewhere).
Although, even for something like abortion, one can certainly talk about
the connection between abortions and people's view of the economy and
the future (abortions tend to go up with pessimism and a sense of
scarcity, down with optimism and a sense of abundance). For example:
"Recession affects family planning, with abortions and vasectomies up"
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article988131.ece
So, to the extent any political group has prolonged the recession by
saying "No" for political gain, they have contributed to tens of
thousands of abortions that might not have happened in a more optimistic
country... That may be a very important issue, and it is, for example,
why the US Catholic vote is often split between Republican and
Democratic (Republican to ban abortions, but Democratic to help ensure
broadly spread economic support in society so abortions are less
likely). Likewise, Disney and RIAA so on, by extending copyrights and
terrorizing individuals have cultivated a chilly climate of scarcity and
I would suggest contributed just a little to abortions. So, something to
weigh in ones political calculus about proprietary knowledge these days.
How many unborn kids are getting aborted (or just not conceived) due to
proprietary information and a scarcity world-view it promotes?
And thinking about stem cells and ethics also connects to DIY-Bio in
other ways, and ethical/political issues about identity and biotech in a
transhumanist way are going to just increase over time. Example:
"Problems of Transhumanism: Liberal Democracy vs. Technocratic Absolutism"
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20100123/
And, now that I think about it, if gay marriage is a hot issue now, what
are people going to say about two or more humans merging their
consciousness in some fancy new electronic device, or humans having
"mind children" as AIs?
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Children-Future-Robot-Intelligence/dp/0674576187
I guess we should be thankful stuff like that is mostly still off the
radar screen? :-) Or should we, because these are important issues to
think about when we can still do a big course correction in how we
approach any singularities?
"My hypothetical H+ Summit presentation :-)"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9bcce2dc0c062d28
=== the need for better communications tools
Ultimately, we need better communications tools so that the filtering
can be done in more advanced ways than post it to a related list or not.
"The need for better communication tools & a semantic web (was Re
reprap-dev)"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/576771df555e729f
Ideally, one could set up a newsreader to only show you certain items --
like threads that mention, say, "(DIY-Bio and (abortion or gay marriage)
and not political)". :-)
Self-censoring or asking people to talk in a certain way may be needed
to some degree in any society or organization, I'll concede. But.
ultimately, emphasizing self-censorship has a lot of drawbacks, too,
especially when discussing broad change about society. What may
ultimately work better is semantic tagging after the fact and also
perhaps promoting insightful/informative/funny/etc. comments (like
slashdot does with moderator points). Although, admittedly, we're not
there yet with a social semantic desktop.
So, while I agree that some problems are best solved by social
engineering, better technical engineering may also make the social
issues easier to solve. Related:
"Getting to 100 social-technical points (was Re: a Change)"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/a7abadb8867dae79?hl=en
=== con one have productive political discussions related to OM?
Again, as far as flame proofing, one can also ask, how can any politics
be talked about respectfully in an OM context? Or how one can head off
or redirect disrespectful or divisive conversations? Other than a
blanket "ban" or whatever.
I feel it reasonable for people to say what they believe and why, as
long as any name calling is kept to a minimum. And certainly, one can
keep sporadic problems to a minimum when what is discussed is directly
related to issues about funding open manufacturing R&D, developing
infrastructure, creating a supportive legal climate, integrating with
schooling, dealing with the socieconomic changes from changing how we
make almost everything eventually, and so on. Although in practice any
group has some spillover into other things. It's a tough balance.
Politics and engineering in general become very intertwined in deciding
what to make, how to make it, how to have the resources for that
process, and who to give the results to. There is, in that sense,
engineering in the small (say, designing a new toaster oven where you
might tradeoff material use versus safety somehow among other things)
and engineering in the large (say, designing a system for designing,
certifying, producing, financing, promoting, repairing, educating about,
inspecting, and recycling toasters, where, again, you might tradeoff
material use versus safety somehow among many other things). You might
be able to to do engineering in the small without politics, because you
just *assume* the goal -- make a toaster. But doing engineering in the
large is probably impossible not to do politically to some degree
because it touches so many aspects of society.
I can liken this to what is said sometimes about the military between
wargaming hobbyists and actual senior soldiers. "Armchair generals talk
strategy, professional generals talk logistics." The logistics of open
manufacturing, done in a big way, has a lot of political overtones.
However, this is not to dismiss the value of focusing on individual
projects. That's all important too, and all adds up. But there remains
an issue of logistical context.
The thing is, so many "parasites" (to use your phrasing) have become so
good at what they do, that they've convinced most people that "politics"
is only something specialist politicians do (or can do), and certainly
not "engineers", and everyone else should not get involved in politics
(or should only get involved in inconsequential ways). But the massing
of a lot of resources towards some end is, ultimately, what much or even
all of politics is about. (Sometimes the end may be stupid or corrupt,
of course.)
Walden II (a novel about a B.F. Skinner "Utopia") described an entire
community voting the way the community political analysts decided, to
save time. I can see, in theory, how there might actually be a lot of
value in that :-) -- if there was broad social consensus already and
politics and our related economy was not so messed up in a lot of ways
with unaccounted externalities or other serious problematical issues and
current political choices essentially just offering more of the same.
Also, the Walden II approach seems a little prone to potential problems
of a single point of failure and corruption, especially in an economic
system that emphasizes profit even if it involves corruption. Still, it
is maybe fair to ask how competent most engineers, especially ones who
have been through grad school, are going to be about "engineering in the
large" political thinking? Even if they essentially do decision making
about tradeoffs all the time in their work in a sense? Also, one could
readily say that more and more of the decisions in our society have
been, in practice, moved into elites, especially when coupled with a
general broad ignorance of the details of science and technology in much
of the US population. Details on that educational failure here:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
Certainly, something like Technocracy wants to even take that to an
extreme. For example, the Venus Project suggests all those political
resource allocation decisions can just be made in some computer
programmed once at the start, a concept I am uncomfortable with. :-)
But, even within a cadre of elite decision makers or elite programmers
or even just within a smart resource allocation algorithm, there need to
be discussions about values and their implications connected to specific
decisions. It is just an inescapable fact of resource management.
Granted, what is "scarce" may change over time to the point where not so
many tradeoffs are needed for things we worry about now (electricity
costs if you have fusion?), and really insightful engineering finds a
way to get things done without many tradeoffs technically in the first
place (so, materials that are both light and strong, etc.).
So, even if one might argue about whether this list was the right place
to have various discussions, one can ask, where is the right place for
engineering types to discuss the politics of creating a better society
through better and more open engineering?
When I was in grad school in the 1980s, working towards Open
Manufacturing related stuff:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html
I was told essentially (by a Dean) that big systems stuff was not
appropriate for a grad program in operations research (and I would need
to find a research institute or something to do that work in). But,
since that is obviously absurd (that's what operations research as a
concept is about -- looking at systems), the big issue was that I was
not looking at the situation politically the way most faculty there did.
(I was interested in decentralization when they were interested in
centralization and networks.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research
Of course, a big issue is that like many academic things, operations
research tends to take the goals or priorities as fixed things. But, who
sets those goals and priorities? And why? That's the question operations
research does not want to reflect on. And it's why my grad school career
went down very fast when I took a public policy course over the protest
of the director of graduate studies.
One may ask, then, where is it appropriate for citizens to talk about
the political implications of new technological systems they are
constructing?
In the section of Disciplined Minds linked above on "Resisting
Indoctrination", Schmidt says he did not quit his grad program, despite
it being obviously narrow and dismissive of social engagement, because
he did not see any alternative spaces where he could go.
So, list some spaces where it is the right time and place for talking
about politics as it applies to open manufacturing? Well, maybe there
are some. A couple of the transhumanist lists maybe? But probably not
many. Now list how many places there are for talking about technical
topics on the internet? I think you will easily make a longer list?
=== rec.arts.metalworking as a negative example?
Still, I will agree that the topics I see at the current latest two
items by "Cliff" at rec.arts.metalworking are offputting:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/topics
with titles like:
* "Palin's Unfavorable Ratings Hit New High"
* "Is Palin a Nazi collaborator?"
* "Palin's Alaska: The Welfare State.
But the third item, if you ignore the personal focus on Palin, is
actually somewhat germane to thinking about funding social change. From
there: "Sarah Palin's true reality: 'Free' Alaska is a welfare state
that enjoys generous federal subsidies"".
Alaska is the only state in the USA with a bit of a basic income for all
citizens (a post-scarcity idea which will also free more people to take
part in the gift economy like Open Manufacturing):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
It is also true, like most rural US areas, Alaska is probably heavily
subsidized in some ways (although perhaps exploited or shaped in others
by those in big cities -- see Jane Jacobs). It is also the US state
(other than islands) that is most like a proving ground for technology
that improves self-reliance, both for individuals and organizations, and
which most represents a sort of frontier mentality in some ways, most
similar to how, say, it might feel to live in outer space.
As I see it, maybe the deepest problem with banning all
political-related discussion on a list like this is that when one talks
about even the most basic issue of open manufacturing -- why openness
matters -- one is very quickly into issues like the hypocrisy related to
that third item, about how much of our society is really crafted outside
of the rhetoric of free enterprise and independent from-scratch creation
of ideas, but then we don't think any of that through very well. One is
very quickly into issues about the connectedness of ideas, the
arbitrariness of various resource allocations, and so on -- which all
tend to undermine some ideological aspects of a free market and a
rationale for funding innovation through a lottery connected to owning
patents and copyrights.
"Chapter 7: The Enclosure of Science and Technology: Two Case Studies"
http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/162
Still, then again, more recent items in that metalworking group drift
off-topic in that sense, at least as far as not connecting them to
metalworking. The last item on that first discussion page at the moment
posted by "Buddy Beavers" is titled: "Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing
Hijabs to Allow TSA �Enhanced Pat Downs� Only on Head and Neck Area". It
is just listed as a news article without any connection to metalworking
(except maybe maybe implicitly gunsmithing using ceramics, which one
might think also off-topic for a metalworking group? :-) I think the
underlying theme is probably grassroots anger by a bunch of
materially-capable and independent-minded people concerned about the
society they live in disintegrating in various material ways (literally
collapsing infrastructure) and otherwise becoming more authoritarian
without even solving the material problems as promised?
So, sure, if you pointed to that group as an example, I'd guess it is
not that functional in many ways, at least as far as discussing
metalworking. I don't track it closely, so it may well have more complex
social dynamics so I don't meant to disparage it. But certainly, I can
imagine how someone looking to discuss how to make bolts using a lathe
is going to look at the first discussion page and say, "this group is
not for me". Still, it's not like that information is hard to find:
http://www.google.com/#q=how+to+make+bolts+on+a+lathe
http://www.majosoft.com/metalworking/html/to_make_screw_thread.html
So, one can ask about the meaning of discussion in such a context with
so much detailed information out there? It may have meaning, but I'd
suggest more and more discussion may drift towards meta topics when the
basics are covered.
On the second page of current discussion items is the title (also by
"Cliff") of: "Warp Saw (Warning: Metalworking content)" (an item about
SawStop).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/browse_thread/thread/1df6fd55250d056b#
Obviously, the humorous titling means something is going on at that
list. :-)
But just before that item is the divisive: "Today's Question: Should
Libertarians Kill Republicans And Teabaggers To Ensure Smaller
Government?" by "Shall not be infringed". Again, looking through the
thread, there is no context related to metalworking and manufacturing.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/browse_thread/thread/881e652df2d98e4a#
So, sure, one might point to that rec.crafts.metalworking group,
especially an example like the last linked thread, and say, yes, that's
in general what we should *not* do here, just back and forth, including
namecalling, without really getting at the core of the issues. Yes, that
is mostly just wheel spinning. But, I hope at least in general, we've
been working at a somewhat more effective level of social and political
analysis here as regards open manufacturing. :-)
But it's certainly fair to say different people have different
interests. And communities may collectively shift their interests over time.
=== has politics become too professionalized?
The Economist spells out why I'm probably never going to be a political
aid to somebody (missed my chance after college), again from: :-)
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
"The emergence of politics as a career choice has been made possible,
argues Peter Oborne in his book �The Triumph of the Political Class�, by
a penumbra of quasi-political institutions�think-tanks, consultancies,
lobbying firms, politicians� back offices. They have increased job
opportunities for would-be politicians. Increasingly, therefore, the
road to a political career leads through politics itself, starting as an
intern, moving to become researcher in a parliamentary or congressional
office, with a spell in a friendly think-tank or lobby group along the
way. Mr Oborne says this is producing an inbred class that lacks proper
connections to the outside world. Perhaps. But the trend is unlikely to
stop. The intrusive demands upon aspiring members of any American
administration make it harder for outsiders to enter politics. (The
Obama team asked applicants, �If you have ever sent an�e-mail, text
message or instant message that could�be a possible source of
embarrassment to you, your family or the President-Elect if it were made
public, please describe.�) For good or ill, politics is becoming its own
profession."
I guess I would have to just supply a link to the open manufacturing
list, slashdot, and my various other sites as all potential
embarrassments? :-) Of course, part of what seems "political" or, for
that matter, "embarrassing", depends on what the goals of a specific
group is. And certainly people's and organization's interests and goals
vary.
=== engineering in the small vs. engineering in the large
One goal related to open manufacturing is obviously to exchange
technical information about specific designs, to develop standards, and
to create supportive technical infrastructure. By itself, there is not
lots of political stuff there, ignoring arguments over, say, what to
make or who to make it with. From that point of view, sure, all the
other stuff going about broad social change or socioeconomic context is
just a distraction, and risks devolving into what
rec.crafts.metalworking suffers through. In that sense, I totally agree
with your point, yes, this group should be a "neutral zone" in the sense
of helping those discussions happen. There is probably a lot more to
cutting screw threads on a lathe than what was discussed at the Majosoft
site, and people may want to discuss that in depth, as well as how to
make open machines to do produce better screw threads.
However, another goal, which is unavoidably political in at least
needing to reflect on political trends, is about refining a message and
philosophy that is compatible with contemporary politics.
For example:
"A letter to the New Yorker about Malcolm Gladwell�s article"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2010/10/25/101025mama_mail4
"It�s hard to think about revolutions without remembering the film �The
Battle of Algiers,� which the C.I.A. reportedly studied when deciding on
an Afghanistan strategy. The success of the resistance network in
Algiers lay not in a hierarchical structure but in a horizontal one. A
horizontal, decentralized structure made the resistance difficult to
stifle, as has been the case with many guerrilla movements throughout
history. I have analyzed opposition political bloggers in Kyrgyzstan and
found that, although the Internet may not bring about revolution, it
does help groups in numerous ways, allowing them to refine a message and
a philosophy, to connect a small but influential group of committed,
strongly tied activists, and to spread general awareness through weak
ties. (Ramesh Srinivasan; Assistant Professor of Information Studies and
Design Media Arts, U.C.L.A.; Los Angeles, Calif.)"
Now, I don't want to call us "opposition bloggers" and all that goes
with it. :-) As I said here:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
"My advice to people here is to build movements in such a way that the
CIA can be proud of them :-) as well as so Sm�ri and Bryan and others
here can be proud of them too. :-) And, given the CIA is hiring
machinists, build a movement where, in a good way, you assume everyone
in it is working for the CIA, :-) but where you still get important
stuff done in moving the world towards a post-scarcity open future. Just
like people should assume Google is a division of the NSA and/or CIA.
:-) An impossible task? Well, consider it more like a creative
challenge. :-)"
Rather than being "opposition bloggers", I'd like more to think of part
of open manufacturing as being more about people trying to talk a
jittery suicidal nation standing on a bridge over troubled waters out of
jumping because it thinks it is destitute when it's ironic the country
has weighed its clothing down with bags full of wealth including gold
and diamonds but also IC chips and solar cells but doesn't even realize
what is in the bags. So, for example, the USA is ready to blow up the
world with nuclear missiles to fight over scarcity, but the same sorts
of technology could solve all our energy and resource problems just from
things like the sand on our beaches turned into silicon ingots.
Related:
"How to Talk Someone Down From a Ledge"
http://www.ehow.com/how_2194054_talk-someone-down-ledge.html
"If the person doesn't have a friends or family available, talk to them
about hope. Remind them of a special time in their life as this
nostalgia could make them see a light at the end of a dark tunnel."
(Treating vitamin D deficiency and malnutrition from lack of vegetables
could help in the long term, too.)
Open manufacturing is, in part, very much about "hope". Hope can be
theoretical, but hope can also be practical.
Still, as I've pointed out before, I don't think we can completely
disentangle the issues of practice and theory/politics. Practice needs
to be informed by politics/theory, and politics/theory needs to be
informed by practice.
=== how to avoid ironic collective US suicide from scarcity fears
IMHO, we still need an OM message that conveys hopefullness, and we also
need to convey that message to all who will listen, before the USA
"jumps" to a disaster using all it's amazing technology (including
nuclear missiles and bioengineered plagues and killer robots, but also
solar panels, tooth regrowing techniques, and grapevine pruning machines).
A famous jumping off a bridge scene, btw: :-)
"It's a Wonderful Life *HD* - Part 11 of 14"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfPn1kDQxuI
IMHO, here is one of the the steps the USA is taking towards jumping to
disaster, based on scarcity thinking and despair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
Another:
"Arms Regulations Damaging US Space Industry"
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/1430204/Arms-Regulations-Damaging-US-Space-Industry
Another:
"The Subsidized Food Pyramid"
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
Another:
"Deficit Directive Tracks GOP Aims"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704865704575610980096152978.html
(And likely, we'll see a repeat of the early part of the Great
Depression as the deficit hawks take over.)
Another:
"President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
And so on... All those are ideas that come out of scarcity thinking but
using the powerful tools of abundance like computers and robotics and
voluntary social networks and global command-and-control systems... All
those are steps that are foolish when you think about the potential of
the abundance engineers can produce if they got a chance to really do
the stuff they know needs to be done and that they, for the most part,
know how to do and want to do.
I just saw an advertisement by Chevron in the New Yorker about how they
said they had spent US$100 billion over the last five years in investing
in increased energy production. They said some was invested in
renewables like geothermal -- but not how much as a percent. I assume,
to be generous, that it was only on the order of 10% or less? If just
one company like Chevron had put that much money in the 1970s entirely
into renewables and energy efficiency and related research in the USA,
instead of mostly drilling holes in the ground, we might be running off
of mostly renewables at this point in the USA. But they did not, despite
the fact that there are probably a hundred thousands engineers and
scientists that would have loved to be part of using that US$100 billion
to create alternatives. Hundreds of thousands of people who would be
justifiably proud of making a contribution towards "saving the planet"
and building a hopeful future. The fact that Chevron did not invest that
money entirely in renewables even now, and instead directed its
engineers to keep working on oil systems, and the fact that the US
taxpayer continues to subsidize oil use through defense spending and
accepting pollution plus tax preferences, is ultimately political in a
deep way. One of the most political things about economics is claiming
economics is not political. :-)
For reference:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
"A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar
electricity across the country. But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011
to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it
cost-competitive."
How many big US-originated oil companies are there? At least four I
would think. So, in the last five years, just according to that US$420
billion figure, which I think is high, those companies have spent enough
to have shifted the USA entirely to renewables as far as "subsidies"
(assuming they had gotten additional capital for the actual transition,
of course, but with vast unemployment, there is a huge amount of idle
capacity in the USA). Just those private companies alone could have,
with help from some profitable loans, moved the entire USA to a
sustainable footing.
But instead, the US economy is still oil dependent and people are
freaking out over Peak Oil and so on (even as I think in practice that
Peak Oil is a non-issue given current trends in solar panel costs).
And the US government sees fit to put less that twenty people on the
issue of informational standards about sustainability:
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
"To prepare for a future where manufacturing has a zero net impact on
the environment, the United States industry will require key resources
and methods that will enable it to measure sustainability along several
dimensions allowing accurate assessment of status and progress. These
resources and methods require a science-based identification of
dimensions, associated measurements and classification and
characterization of information relevant to sustainable products,
processes, and services. Such traceable information is critical to
product designers and manufacturing engineers so that they can
incorporate sustainability in their efforts and comply with
international regulations. To create this information infrastructure
the program will: analyze standards requirements and best practices for
sustainable manufacturing; create lifecycle information models for
interoperability among systems and tools that support sustainable
manufacturing; and validate and test information models for sustainable
design and manufacturing."
The decision not to put more resources towards that worth end is,
ultimately, political. It's also can be a political decision on behalf
of big polluters to avoid making that sort of analysis easy.
Granted, individual citizens may, through open manufacturing, on their
own pledge their own time and fortune to that effort. Let's hope it is
enough. So far, it has not been.
=== Burdened by Bags of Sand
Here is my point above reconfigured as a "political" dialog related to
post-scarcity: :-)
"You there, on the bridge, with the USA T-shirt and the bags tied to
yourself, stay where you are."
"I'm going to jump!"
"Don't do it. Have some hope. Things could get better."
"No they can't! I'm so poor and burdened! I've cut back on
everything, but I'm still poor! And I'm forced to carry these darn heavy
sand bags around everywhere! Life's just too hard!"
"Those heavy looking bags you have tied to yourself -- they are
labeled sand but they look a little pointy for sand?"
"Oh, they are bags of Intel Core i7s and bags solar cells."
"But how can you be poor when you have bags of expensive refined
silicon ingots!"
"Don't you get it? I'm poor! The world is poor! In fact, just
carrying these sand bags around all the time for years has made my life
a living hell and made it hard for me to get and keep a job as a clerk
or an oil well roustabout. These sand bags are so heavy I can't do
anything I want to do anymore. You don't know what it's like with a
burden like this to carry around these heavy sand bags all the time
everywhere I go. I am so cursed!"
"But why don't you sell the bags or give them away?"
"Don't you get it, I'm POOR! We're all POOR! What would be the point?
Who would want sand? We're all going to die from Peak Information and
Peak Oil soon, anyway, so everyone is buying guns and Spam, and so no
one is going to buy sand!"
"I'm going to come up to give you a hand getting down safely. Hang on
to hope."
"Don't come any closer or I'll throw this bunch of old sand I found
in my attic at you!"
And so on...
By the way:
"Chinese Vase, Found in Attic, Fetches $83M"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/12/world/main7046950.shtml
And:
"The unit cost for one Lockheed Trident is 30.9 million dollars..."
http://novakeo.com/?p=4353
See also:
"A Survivor Talks About His Leap"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1197707,00.html
=== refining a hopeful message
I don't think you can refine an optimistic hopeful message about
socioeconomics or talk about how to present it without considering at
least some of the political landscape and political beliefs related to
scarcity thinking. But I'd agree that one can certainly try to do that
without advocating a particular political party and that would be a good
thing to try to do that. I can doubt that is 100% possible since it may
end up kind of obvious which political groups are more supportive of
which parts of various agendas, and individuals may also care more or
less about certain parts of the agenda and might disagree on who to vote
for based on that. Nonetheless, your point is a good reminder that we
should try to do that, at the very least.
So, and without advocating any particular political party, I feel it
reasonable to ask two questions:
1. What is a broadly shared and catchy open manufacturing "message and
philosophy"?
2. How does that message connect in a positive way to current political
trends in various countries?
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.