5 ms·

Hello, Thank you for the link you've shared. I read it with great interest. While I can conceive that the aforementioned areas might survive in a post-industri

Hello, Thank you for the link you've shared. I read it with great interest. While I can conceive that the aforementioned areas might survive in a post-industrial civilization, it is unclear to me how the technology that 100rabbits is researching could do the same. They might use Raspberry Pis or old PCs donated by others, but: - these are impossible to manufacture without industries, and they are limited in number - the only means of communication they're using to share their work, the Internet, inherently requires an industrial society to exist This seems somewhat akin to the naive reaction to the financial crises we experienced a few years ago: "Oh dear, banks and finance can be evil, let's decentralize with Bitcoin." I believe that we cannot address the problems that technology has brought us (nuclear weapons, global warming) without resorting once again to technology and science. This technology and science must necessarily be funded by the market.

CapstanRoller 2y ago
>This technology and science must necessarily be funded by the market. Why?
- gvicino 2y ago
  We are a planet of 8 billion people. Through what other supply model could we ensure the production of computers and technology for everyone (or even just for some) if not the market? Here I found an infographic that shows how the supply chain for the production of a PC works: https://scmresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/supply_chain_of_a_computer.png https://scmresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/supply_ch... This also applies to science. The Covid pandemic is almost certainly a result of global warming caused by human activities, but the vaccine for Covid was found thanks to a shared effort of humanity, encouraged by both government policies and, above all, the profit of pharmaceutical companies. I am well aware of all the flaws of capitalism, but I can't understand how we can have an "information age" without a market. We can try to reduce our impact, learn to decentralize, learn to fix things that break (all things I personally do), but I can't envision a decentralized technological and scientific world that wouldn't set us back 300 years.
  - vinnyvichy 2y ago
    Your covid point reminds me of the Jonathan (oops forgot his last name) inventing rna tech on his yacht :) And trying to create a market, also from his yacht, but alas also not very successful
  - CapstanRoller 2y ago
    >I can't envision a decentralized technological and scientific world that wouldn't set us back 300 years. And yet you are here arguing for more capitalist market-based solutions, which are inherently decentralized and have a tendency to create unrelated, wasteful (duplication of effort), and often pointless competition and profit-seeking? Very odd.
    - gvicino 2y ago
      Let's not mince words: - The decentralization of markets (criticized by some, though I'm not among them) is often condemned because it can lead to elements of economic power centralization. Critics argue that it makes people dependent on tools and technologies controlled by a few, and driven by profit. - The decentralization proposed in the technological field is closer to anarchist ideals and suggests a kind of decentralization implemented by individual people and groups on a voluntary and mutualistic basis. I don't believe the latter can truly benefit humanity because I don't think we are that evolved. Individuals primarily seek their own personal gain and are often so uninformed as to not understand that this personal benefit is only achievable with the benefit of the community. I believe that the market (controlled and monitored by nations and supranational entities) functions better because it is an imperfect model that, by leveraging people's selfishness, compels them to collaborate and communicate with each other.
      - CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >The decentralization proposed in the technological field is closer to anarchist ideals Anarchist ideals? From right-wing billionaires like Musk and Thiel? Or by centrist billionaires like...? Because that's who is driving the technological field, ultimately — people who have more money than entire countries, to whom we are basically just bugs to be squashed if we bother them. >I believe that the market (controlled and monitored by nations and supranational entities) functions better because it is an imperfect model that, by leveraging people's selfishness, lmao This doesn't feel like a serious discussion. I'm out.
vinnyvichy 2y ago
Thank you for your curiosity! Decentralization is a very long term effort -- Grothendieck said it would take generations, we can't expect immediate results. So while 100R certainly can't survive without relying on industry, it does do research into technologies that may be easier to "deindustrialize". See the "off-grid" and "sustainability" pages on their site. Finer point: even before the industrial revolution, humans have had access to supercomputers -- their own brains! It's conceivable that in the not so far future we will be able to grow computers of our own design, from just air and water. See promising efforts in this direction, it's not an empty dream! https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw I guess the moral of the day with regards to banks and finance is, don't jump the gun! We will need them until we can grow raspberry pies on a tree!
- gvicino 2y ago
  I understand your point of view, but I'm not sure we're that far ahead in progress. It seems very solar punk science fiction if we're talking about the near future. If we're talking about a more distant future, then I can still hope for it.
  - vinnyvichy 2y ago
    I wouldn't say the horizon is 100 years, but 250 years. Mainly to re-architect finance to support relevant research. You know how psychological obstacles are the hardest! The first milestone is to minimize the use of metals in our society, use as dopants or catalysts only. Second milestone is alumina. (Money OTOH will probably always be necessary!) What I wanted to explain above is that for computing, arguably our most advanced tech, metals are not strictly needed. You would also probably be surprised at the true state of our solarpunk tech. There are water antennas, solar-pumped lasers.. that's almost 1950 already.
    - gvicino 2y ago
      Thank you. It seems like you have a clear path for this transition. Do you have any reading suggestions that explain this transition?

CapstanRoller 2y ago

>This technology and science must necessarily be funded by the market. Why?

gvicino 2y ago
We are a planet of 8 billion people. Through what other supply model could we ensure the production of computers and technology for everyone (or even just for some) if not the market? Here I found an infographic that shows how the supply chain for the production of a PC works: https://scmresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/supply_chain_of_a_computer.png https://scmresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/supply_ch... This also applies to science. The Covid pandemic is almost certainly a result of global warming caused by human activities, but the vaccine for Covid was found thanks to a shared effort of humanity, encouraged by both government policies and, above all, the profit of pharmaceutical companies. I am well aware of all the flaws of capitalism, but I can't understand how we can have an "information age" without a market. We can try to reduce our impact, learn to decentralize, learn to fix things that break (all things I personally do), but I can't envision a decentralized technological and scientific world that wouldn't set us back 300 years.
- vinnyvichy 2y ago
  Your covid point reminds me of the Jonathan (oops forgot his last name) inventing rna tech on his yacht :) And trying to create a market, also from his yacht, but alas also not very successful
- CapstanRoller 2y ago
  >I can't envision a decentralized technological and scientific world that wouldn't set us back 300 years. And yet you are here arguing for more capitalist market-based solutions, which are inherently decentralized and have a tendency to create unrelated, wasteful (duplication of effort), and often pointless competition and profit-seeking? Very odd.
  - gvicino 2y ago
    Let's not mince words: - The decentralization of markets (criticized by some, though I'm not among them) is often condemned because it can lead to elements of economic power centralization. Critics argue that it makes people dependent on tools and technologies controlled by a few, and driven by profit. - The decentralization proposed in the technological field is closer to anarchist ideals and suggests a kind of decentralization implemented by individual people and groups on a voluntary and mutualistic basis. I don't believe the latter can truly benefit humanity because I don't think we are that evolved. Individuals primarily seek their own personal gain and are often so uninformed as to not understand that this personal benefit is only achievable with the benefit of the community. I believe that the market (controlled and monitored by nations and supranational entities) functions better because it is an imperfect model that, by leveraging people's selfishness, compels them to collaborate and communicate with each other.
    - CapstanRoller 2y ago
      >The decentralization proposed in the technological field is closer to anarchist ideals Anarchist ideals? From right-wing billionaires like Musk and Thiel? Or by centrist billionaires like...? Because that's who is driving the technological field, ultimately — people who have more money than entire countries, to whom we are basically just bugs to be squashed if we bother them. >I believe that the market (controlled and monitored by nations and supranational entities) functions better because it is an imperfect model that, by leveraging people's selfishness, lmao This doesn't feel like a serious discussion. I'm out.

vinnyvichy 2y ago

Thank you for your curiosity! Decentralization is a very long term effort -- Grothendieck said it would take generations, we can't expect immediate results. So while 100R certainly can't survive without relying on industry, it does do research into technologies that may be easier to "deindustrialize". See the "off-grid" and "sustainability" pages on their site. Finer point: even before the industrial revolution, humans have had access to supercomputers -- their own brains! It's conceivable that in the not so far future we will be able to grow computers of our own design, from just air and water. See promising efforts in this direction, it's not an empty dream! https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw I guess the moral of the day with regards to banks and finance is, don't jump the gun! We will need them until we can grow raspberry pies on a tree!

gvicino 2y ago
I understand your point of view, but I'm not sure we're that far ahead in progress. It seems very solar punk science fiction if we're talking about the near future. If we're talking about a more distant future, then I can still hope for it.
- vinnyvichy 2y ago
  I wouldn't say the horizon is 100 years, but 250 years. Mainly to re-architect finance to support relevant research. You know how psychological obstacles are the hardest! The first milestone is to minimize the use of metals in our society, use as dopants or catalysts only. Second milestone is alumina. (Money OTOH will probably always be necessary!) What I wanted to explain above is that for computing, arguably our most advanced tech, metals are not strictly needed. You would also probably be surprised at the true state of our solarpunk tech. There are water antennas, solar-pumped lasers.. that's almost 1950 already.
  - gvicino 2y ago
    Thank you. It seems like you have a clear path for this transition. Do you have any reading suggestions that explain this transition?