Thanks for sharing that nuancing perspective Sam. We certainly want to
be alert to sliding into the same old patterns of techno-dependency
and techno-infatuation when we attempt to design for a future. John
Michael Greer of "Long Descent" fame has a great piece on this concern
on his February 1 blog entry, entitled "The Recovery of the Human"
I've been keeping an eye on the Open Source Ecology (OSE) folks for a
while and their "Global Village Construction Set" project. Very
ambitious! I think they definitely understand the need for energy
input to all of their projects and are pursuing at least two distinct
projects designing around bio-diesel for liquid fuels and electricity
from self-built, village-scale technologies. They really are trying to
address the most challenging notions of future technologies, even the
"renewable" ones. For instance - we could all make our own small wind
generators if we took the time. But to do so you need to have an
actual generator to be spun by the blades! Where does that come from
after we have scavenged the existing ones for a few decades? Well they
are working to design self-built generators, village-scale metal
fabrication and quite a bit more. It is fascinating stuff. But that
fascination has to still be subject to self-scrutiny.
But since OSE is also a typical "open source" project that means they
try not to limit the creative directions of active participants -
there are some really amazing technophiles are on board; talented and
enthusiastic and creative folks. But this also means that there are
"strands" of the project that DO seem to be trying to recreate (albeit
on a local scale) all sorts of technologies that don't fit some
visions of a post-industrial transition - things like computers and
electronics and even 3D printers!
On Feb 9, 11:18 am, Samuel Bosco <sf...@cornell.edu
> Thanks for that Eric, a very intriguing video that welled-up a lot of mixed
> emotions in me.
> Decentralizing tool construction, decreasing the "skill gap", turning
> scraps into useable, productive implements is amazing and has profound
> implications both good and perhaps not so good.
> What incited some unrest in me about this was that it still carries the
> mantra of "industrial efficiency" and while there is an environmentally
> friendly supply source, the intended use of the machines, and of course the
> energy source that powers them, isn't necessarily considered and so it
> seems to me that's it not a "whole" idea or concept. *Personally*, the blue