An Open ideology?

[Herbert Snorrason]

Please allow me to introduce myself; I'm a man of study and analysis.
I've been around for a little while, read quite a lot, and seen some
more. Pleased to meet you.

It seems to me that this group, although nominally about non-
proprietary production methods, has a tendency to talk about rather
less technical issues. Specifically, it tends to turn into a
discussion of how these technologies impact social structures. It
seems to me, though, that much of that talk is vague and seriously
lacking in analytical strength. What is Openness? What is its aim? How
is it distinct from other approaches? How can it avoid the trap that
befell mainstream Marxism and other reformist movements – that is,
assimilation into the existing system? Most importantly, though, what
fundamental novelties can it offer us in a world that has not
fundamentally changed?

Because that's the thing. There are no radical new possibilities today
that did not exist fifty, seventy-five, a hundred, two hundred years
ago. "What," you may say, "don't you understand that technology has
altered the fundamental character of our societies?" And the answer is
that no, I don't. And I am a student of history. Looking at the
realities and potentials of the past is what I spend my time doing.
The truth is that technical changes have never opened up truly new
avenues, not even in the case of movable type printing, which is
undeniably the single most transformative technology in recorded
history. (The reason being that writing was formative of recorded
history. Note the lack of 'trans' in front.) It is equally true that
the technological innovation of movable type was made useful by the
protestant movement, as it is that the protestant movement was enabled
by movable type. Today is no different. The propelling power is the
entertainment industry, much to its own horror, rather than the
churches, but it is clear to anyone who cares to see that digital
representation only *really* started impacting society when the peer-
to-peer protestants started disregarding the authority of the media
mogul Vatican. And do you want to hear the bad side of this simile?
The protestant churches were generally viler than anything the
Catholic Church had done. And this from a technology that today is
considered inherently liberatory. Rubbish.

Malthusian limits have never been a significant constraint on human
activity. It is possible that this situation is about to change in
regards with oil, but far from certain. Rather, scarcity has been
imposed upon the majority of the population by a system designed to
distort economic and social relations with brute force. Feudal Europe
supported significant numbers of people who lived very comfortably,
even by our standards. They were supported by a set of social
relations which required others to work in order to sustain them. Of
course it would have been impossible to sustain everyone at the
highest standards; but is it really implausible that by taking away
the lord, his servants might have had a rather richer meal? Today, of
course, this isn't even worth talking about. The abundance of all
sorts of materials, including food, is such that we don't even know
what to do with it all. The trouble is that it's all so oddly split
up. Why is that? Well, again, it's because there are social and
economic relations in place that keep the split odd. Those relations
are kept in place by political forces – who tend to be carrying guns.
And, slow and conservative though they may be, they will notice it
when the balance changes. And they will try to maintain the old set of
social and economic relations, by force if neccessary. How would an
Open Movement succeed against this obstacle, which is what has stopped
most other serious movements for equality?

With respect,
Herbert Snorrason

[Bryan Bishop]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Herbert Snorrason <meth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that this group, although nominally about non-
> proprietary production methods, has a tendency to talk about rather
> less technical issues. Specifically, it tends to turn into a
> discussion of how these technologies impact social structures. It

Ignore the hiss and the noise :-). There's a few reasons why there's
not more technical talk; it's because we're all busy doing
implementations. As an example, just before I sat down to reply to
your email, I was working on an automated design system, and yelling
at people on the openmanufacturing mailing list is not going to be the
way to get them to get anything done. Have to do it myself, etc.

> seems to me, though, that much of that talk is vague and seriously
> lacking in analytical strength. What is Openness? What is its aim? How

No, it doesn't have an aim, although if you're looking for a
value-driven definition of opennness I'm sure the extropian
documentation might be useful there. Basically technical people
understand what 'openness' means: it means putting up the designs on
the server, allowing agents to wget and use those such, as well as
other related concepts. It's a functional issue, not so much one of
words and politics, and mostly it's from techie-to-techie because
that's who understands each other; all of this talk about policies are
things that I really could care less about (I've been scolded by many
before because of my lack of care for licenses, but alas I might just
be too stubborn).

> is it distinct from other approaches? How can it avoid the trap that

The distinction is from the "now you see it, now you don't" days.

> befell mainstream Marxism and other reformist movements – that is,
> assimilation into the existing system? Most importantly, though, what
> fundamental novelties can it offer us in a world that has not
> fundamentally changed?

It's not so much reform as it is for our own personal uses. See the
earlier discussions on personal fabrication bootstrapping. As it turns
out, and this is really quite wonderful, these technologies scale up
(they already do), so it has awesome implications for social
organization and how we can more effectively build stuff with each
other.

> Because that's the thing. There are no radical new possibilities today
> that did not exist fifty, seventy-five, a hundred, two hundred years
> ago. "What," you may say, "don't you understand that technology has
> altered the fundamental character of our societies?" And the answer is
> that no, I don't. And I am a student of history. Looking at the
> realities and potentials of the past is what I spend my time doing.
> The truth is that technical changes have never opened up truly new
> avenues, not even in the case of movable type printing, which is
> undeniably the single most transformative technology in recorded

You're wrong. Your study of history hasn't shown you that there were
no publicly available schematics for the movable type printers. You
will find that it was instantly commercialized and locked up. Many
professors (I say this generally, and really mean teachers) of the
'liberal arts', in the sense of reading/writing (not liberation), will
tell you that the printing press and literature is the freedom of the
world, and whatnot, humanity's greatest strength, and whatnot. But as
it turns out, it was instantly hoarded and put under close lock and
key. Oh well. So much for history.

I agree that there are no radical possibilities today that didn't
exist previously; indeed, should I ever be mysteriously transported
into the deep ancient past, I would still be able to build the
technologies that I build today: though perhaps much more slowly.

But then what is the value in what we are talking about? Essentially
it's some long overdue public systematicization of the art and
processes of engineering and manufacturing. Long, long overdue. This
isn't new .. that's why we're all somewhat annoyed ;-).

> Malthusian limits have never been a significant constraint on human
> activity. It is possible that this situation is about to change in
> regards with oil, but far from certain. Rather, scarcity has been
> imposed upon the majority of the population by a system designed to
> distort economic and social relations with brute force. Feudal Europe
> supported significant numbers of people who lived very comfortably,
> even by our standards. They were supported by a set of social
> relations which required others to work in order to sustain them. Of
> course it would have been impossible to sustain everyone at the
> highest standards; but is it really implausible that by taking away
> the lord, his servants might have had a rather richer meal? Today, of
> course, this isn't even worth talking about. The abundance of all
> sorts of materials, including food, is such that we don't even know
> what to do with it all. The trouble is that it's all so oddly split
> up. Why is that? Well, again, it's because there are social and
> economic relations in place that keep the split odd. Those relations
> are kept in place by political forces – who tend to be carrying guns.
> And, slow and conservative though they may be, they will notice it
> when the balance changes. And they will try to maintain the old set of
> social and economic relations, by force if neccessary. How would an
> Open Movement succeed against this obstacle, which is what has stopped
> most other serious movements for equality?

Others on this mailing list tend to disagree with me on this note, but
look at the technologies that we're talking about, such as open
manufacturing, habitats and automated mining operations and so many
other things; this doesn't imply the need to be around the people with
which you're currently bickering. Who cares? Just move on - this is
what the empowering and enabling technology is capable of. It's the
old colonization process, except yet another version, all packaged up
into bits and bytes this time instead of on to a wooden ship to set
sail off the high seas. Anyway, I need to get back to my work. Keep
historicizing.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
http://austinbrains.org/

[Helen Titchen Beeth]

Hmmm - I think we might be missing something here.

Thanks, Herbert - by the way - for weighing in so forcefully. I love
it when someone makes me sit up and listen.

I can't help suspecting that the one thing that has changed over the
years is the complexity of human thinking. And it's changed in order
to grapple with the problems created by our solutions to the previous
set of problems.

You'll notice that technology, economic and social life conditions and
the complexity of thinking and values of individuals (and the
surrounding culture) all progress together. Today on the planet we
have some kind of version of every stage of development of human
society since the hunter-gatherers took their great leap forwards and
society started to evolve. Nothing is any longer in the pure state it
was when it was 'cutting edge' on the virgin planet, of course,
because everything has been mixed and mingled (anyone seen the film
'the gods must be crazy'?).

So I don't think its quite fair to say that we could go back in time
and create what we are doing now back then. Because we wouldn't have
the thinking that we have now.

It's hard to separate out technology from culture from biology from
psychology. They are all aspects of the same phenomenon. And it looks
to me like they're all co-evolving.

helen

[Bryan Bishop]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Helen Titchen Beeth
<helen.tit...@mac.com> wrote:
> So I don't think its quite fair to say that we could go back in time and
> create what we are doing now back then. Because we wouldn't have the
> thinking that we have now.

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/03/bootstrapping_t.php

"What one mind can think, so can another."

Also, this is sort of missing the point. I said transported back in
time mysteriously. It's not *that* interesting for me. I'm not really
waiting for time machines or anything. Heh.

- Bryan

[Helen Titchen Beeth]

This is great, Bryan, thanks for the link. It actually is very much
along the lines I was thinking in my own inarticulate fashion. It
seems all this bootstrapping is fractal - it can apply as much to the
activities of an individual as to the whole of human society. Look
what we've made from two sticks, eh?

:-D

h

[Vinay Gupta]

Herbert, how do you think greater agricultural productivity per acre
(crop rotation, organic farming techniques etc.) factors into this
kind of historical analysis?

Also (and I don't want to broaden this too much) things like germ
theory.

Vinay


--
Vinay Gupta
Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest

http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision

Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk : hexayurt
Icelandic Cell : (+354) 869-4605

"If it doesn't fit, force it."

[Nathan Cravens]

Hi Herbert,

 

Knowledge of history is exceptionally important. I'm delighted to see those like yourself well studied in the field in the discussion. Knowing how societies lived before us can shed a tremendous amount on how we can live more fulfilling lives. My father was a historian, his father a historian, and myself, well, I'd prefer not to be labeled. I would like favor them both alive today... I do however use the titles "philosopher" and "futurist" because they are so exceptionally broad, and I find it useful to give someone an answer when asked, "what do you do?" or "what are you?" This lends us now to consider your criticism.

 

> It seems to me that this group, although nominally about non-
> proprietary production methods, has a tendency to talk about rather
> less technical issues. Specifically, it tends to turn into a
> discussion of how these technologies impact social structures. It

Ignore the hiss and the noise :-). There's a few reasons why there's
not more technical talk; it's because we're all busy doing
implementations. As an example, just before I sat down to reply to
your email, I was working on an automated design system, and yelling
at people on the openmanufacturing mailing list is not going to be the
way to get them to get anything done. Have to do it myself, etc.

There is the echo of Protestant sentiment with many of us. The individual alone with her God has shifted to the Individual alone in a world of her own. Proprietary agencies have exploited this farce, but many of us, including abundance movements in general, see through the transparency of greed, the egotist, scarcity, and of obligation, the kind of obligation that attempts to cognitively remove the persistent affective burning inside dwelled within since childhood telling you all along, it is wrong. The conceptions we've learned were useful for a time, but only for a time. We have the ability to move forward, chipping away at the walls of scarcity as we toil as we please. The use of artifice, of technology, is paramount. A swan cannot fly without wings. Many of us are attempting to make my world--our world, but perhaps more directly, we provide a way to create the tools that turn your world into one of your own terms, so your world does not fault my own. In this manner, you are able to share parts of your world I like and I share parts of my world you like, and vis versa if so chosen.

 

> seems to me, though, that much of that talk is vague and seriously
> lacking in analytical strength. What is Openness? What is its aim? How

No, it doesn't have an aim, although if you're looking for a
value-driven definition of opennness I'm sure the extropian
documentation might be useful there. Basically technical people
understand what 'openness' means: it means putting up the designs on
the server, allowing agents to wget and use those such, as well as
other related concepts. It's a functional issue, not so much one of
words and politics, and mostly it's from techie-to-techie because
that's who understands each other; all of this talk about policies are
things that I really could care less about (I've been scolded by many
before because of my lack of care for licenses, but alas I might just
be too stubborn).

 

I side with Bryan here, mostly. There is an aim, but it is one of flexibility and generality. The only time we might become rigid and proprietary is when openness is threatened. Our projects have analytical strength, and we make it a point to share our distinctive projects in the form of essays or other descriptive content (available for examination elsewhere) in this discussion in whatever manner one might avail themselves to choose. Our talks are often not about the object or technology itself, but how that object is used abundantly, for benefit to all, outside proprietary agency to the greatest extent possible. The goal, post-scarcity or open everything, whatever, whenever, however, whyever, ect. The individual, the social group, the agreed upon function, makes each open a unique open. Open is relative, like language itself. As the relation of things are recognized, the more one learns of the relations of things to other things, the greater the manufactured meaning behind what is known is known. That assertion however may be useless, so its important that formal definitions are made whenever the need may arise for collaborative effort and 'same page-ism'.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Thursday 25 September 2008, Nathan Cravens wrote:
> Many of us are attempting to make my world--our world, but perhaps
> more directly, we provide a way to create the tools that turn your
> world into one of your own terms, so your world does not fault my
> own. In this manner, you are able to share parts of your world I like
> and I share parts of my world you like, and vis versa if so chosen.

See also:
> There is still a role for technical invention, but it is strongly
> distinguished from political, legal, cultural, or social
> interventions. For most transhumanists, there is no rhetoric here, no
> sophistry, just the pure truth of “it works”: the pure, undeniable,
> unstoppable, and undeconstructable reality of technology. For the
> transhumanist attitude, the reality of “working code” has a reality
> that other assertions about the world do not. Extreme transhumanism
> replaces the life-world with the world of the computer, where bad
> (ethically bad) ideas won’t compile. Less-staunch versions of
> transhumanism simply allow the confusion to operate
> opportunistically: the progress of technology is unquestionable
> (omniscient), and only its effects on humans are worth investigating.
http://twobits.net/

Particular emphasis on "ethically bad ideas won't compile." Nathan, your
world gave mine a parse-error.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap