Computers and the Beginning of the End

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
michael	Computers and the Beginning of the End	Lead	[-]
Posts: 36 (12/20/08 05:38:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Recently, Ran has posted that we are seeing the beginning of the Collapse "35 years in the past when American domestic oil production began to decline". This puts the date of collapse at 1973. But if so, that puts the entire history of the personal computer within the Era of Collapse.... All people had before then was television, which is a decidedly mixed blessing. Speaking of computers, it's notable that they have two contradictory effects on collapsism. On the one hand, the fact that a collapse to hunting and gathering would mean no semiconductor technology is perhaps the best reason to resist such collapse civilization can offer. On the other hand, without widespread PCs and the Internet, entities like Anthropik and the Archdruid would not have their soapboxes.
kalpa henki		#1	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/20/08 08:17:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Never before in human history has the dissemination of real-time information been instantly available to the masses on the scale it is today. For that reason we see countries like the PRC, and others, filter what comes through. This is not to say it's all good information; the probability of shills, plants and dis-info campaigns is rife across the net I'm convinced. However, taking the widespread corruption on Wall St. and throughout the financial sector for example, it might have been years before we knew of root causes to our current economic crisis..........were it 1929 say. TBTB are, of course, chagrined with this but are also placated knowing they themselves will NOT be the ones returning to any semblance of "a collapse to hunting and gathering", rather they'll be among the few who retain access to the web in the likelihood of such an event. I believe it was JP Morgan who once said, "A depression is when money returns to it's rightful owners". PS As afterthought: It also occurs to me the absolute need to take advantage of and utilize this medium toward tangible goals while it is still available. Last Edited By: kalpa henki 12/20/08 08:53:54. Edited 1 times.
zombans		#2	[-]
Posts: 397 (12/20/08 11:57:29) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I use my computer, but I'm not fond of it. I don't think having the latest news at a click is necessarily the most needed thing, especially when it's usually along the lines of criminal interest stories or celebrity gossip that keeps the headlines--or the weather, which will only get more interesting, I presume. I imagine Anthropik and Archdruid would still be on their soapboxes, but maybe to a smaller and more intimate crowd (around the fire). Reading about the economic crisis, you're right, I wouldn't know there was a crisis if I hadn't read it on the news because I don't buy into all that. That's what my grampa told me about the Depression; they didn't feel any effects of it for years after they read about it. James Howard Kunstler's book A World Made By Hand has a story line that happens after TSHTF, including what our communication could be like. I was born in 1973, and always wondered why this culture seemed so fucked up. carey
michael		#3	[-]
Posts: 37 (12/20/08 15:50:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	kalpa henki wrote: TBTB are, of course, chagrined with this but are also placated knowing they themselves will NOT be the ones returning to any semblance of "a collapse to hunting and gathering", rather they'll be among the few who retain access to the web in the likelihood of such an event. I don't think most rich and powerful people are significantly better prepared for collapse than the rest of us. They seem to think the Collapse will merely be the sudden discarding of the US dollar in favor of a gold-backed currency -- so all they need to do is have a nice big pile of overpriced yellow metal where they can see it and they'll be fine. But we know that's not very wise.... zombans wrote: I use my computer, but I'm not fond of it. I don't think having the latest news at a click is necessarily the most needed thing, Computers are a lot more than "latest news at a click".
lulugraphics		#4	[-]
Posts: 115 (12/20/08 16:58:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	michael wrote: I don't think most rich and powerful people are significantly better prepared for collapse than the rest of us. They seem to think the Collapse will merely be the sudden discarding of the US dollar in favor of a gold-backed currency -- so all they need to do is have a nice big pile of overpriced yellow metal where they can see it and they'll be fine. But we know that's not very wise.... I agree, I don't think rich people have a clue. Us bottom feederz are better prepared, in accumulated skills, and more important, we are better prepared emotionally, mentally, psychologically, socially, nutritionally. I think two groups are going to have a lot of problems, one is wealthy people who've never shit in a bag and another is people who eat Banquet fried chicken dinners, gas station food and watch trailer park cable tv channels. They're just a few who are going to go into culture/collapse shock. Oh, yeah, and people who are used to driving everywhere.
kalpa henki		#5	[-]
Posts: 9 (12/20/08 17:27:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	michael wrote I don't think most rich and powerful people are significantly better prepared for collapse than the rest of us. They seem to think the Collapse will merely be the sudden discarding of the US dollar in favor of a gold-backed currency -- so all they need to do is have a nice big pile of overpriced yellow metal where they can see it and they'll be fine. But we know that's not very wise.... To this I can only add our understanding of economic fundamentals are significantly disparate then, as well frame of reference. Last Edited By: kalpa henki 12/21/08 02:40:24. Edited 1 times.
michael		#6	[-]
Posts: 44 (12/23/08 18:05:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	kalpa henki wrote: This is not to say it's all good information; the probability of shills, plants and dis-info campaigns is rife across the net I'm convinced. Various factions within civilization will of course attempt to use the Internet for propaganda, just as they'd use any other popular media. But what I'm talking about is the fact that the computer itself functions as something like propaganda for civilization. It's a very economical tool, combining the services of a massive library and a massive toybox. On top of that, many people non-rationally find the experience of exploring the computer enthralling. Semiconductor production presently depends on economies of scale -- the factories are very expensive and geared to massive runs of identical chips. At present this is supported by centralized production for a massive population of electronics users, who are constantly replacing their equipment with newer, faster versions. In a simple collapse, with a smaller, poorer, scattered population, limited long-range transport, and a definitive end to Moore's law, today's electronics production methods won't be viable. This means that many smart people who otherwise might be cheering on the revolution will instead be trying to shore up the present order. As afterthought: It also occurs to me the absolute need to take advantage of and utilize this medium toward tangible goals while it is still available. Note that the alliance between computer culture and civilization is not a particularly harmonious one, persisting only because the two sides need each other. (Particular sore points are "intellectual property" and internet advertising.) The values of the hacker community are in many cases closer to that of drop-outs (in this forum's positive sense of the term), than they are to civilized non-hackers. So it would be worthwhile to research an alternative, short-run way to create computer components. If a more sustainable way to keep the computers repaired was available, it might actually be easier to pull the hackers away than other civilized people....
Doc Agape		#7	[-]
Posts: 91 (12/29/08 05:35:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Computers and the internet have given us global perspective and an appreciation for diversity and the interplay of ideas. As we "collapse" back to a pre-oil culture of small communities we will carry that worldview back home and contemplate the universe as we chop wood...I hope...
PlatonicPimp		#8	[-]
Posts: 63 (12/29/08 06:42:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This is actually an area I really have hope for, even though I cannot directly impact it. In my Dream, before the fall completes itself, some very smart people create a nanomachine, or a bacteria (at that level, a carbon atom makes all the difference between a machine and life), that eats sand and shits microprocessors. The idea is that you have a container, and you put in the raw materials, and you come back later to find computer parts. Kinda like yogurt, but computers. And a few years later, this nanotech facility has an accident, and those little machines get out in the environment. Out into the desert. And now, sitting in the middle of a silicate eater's Willy Wonka Paradise, they spread like mad, turning sand into microchips. Evolution happens fast at the small end of the scale, and it isn't long until something else evolves to eat our little organic nanomachines. And it isn't long until the population stabilizes. So what we get is a new part of the ecosystem, that just happens to create useable computer parts. It's way out there on the woo woo science fiction end of the scale, but it's one way that, perhaps, computers could be sustainably developed.
michael		#9	[-]
Posts: 47 (12/29/08 22:06:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	PlatonicPimp wrote: And a few years later, this nanotech facility has an accident, and those little machines get out in the environment. Out into the desert. And now, sitting in the middle of a silicate eater's Willy Wonka Paradise, they spread like mad, turning sand into microchips. But nothing can "eat" silicate -- it is already completely "burned". If the nanobots want silicon, they'll have to expend energy to free it from the oxygen. Evolution happens fast at the small end of the scale, and it isn't long until something else evolves to eat our little organic nanomachines. And it isn't long until the population stabilizes. So what we get is a new part of the ecosystem, that just happens to create useable computer parts. The nanobots themselves would probably evolve to become better at growing, discarding the "genes" that lead them to produce the computer components. (But there's more hope for harvesting solar cells, since effective solar cells will be essential for survival in the desert environment.) It's way out there on the woo woo science fiction end of the scale, but it's one way that, perhaps, computers could be sustainably developed. Definitely. But we don't need to go quite as far into "woo woo" to have some hope. The reason semiconductor plants are so expensive is that, under capitalism, an electronics producer must produce equipment that is comparable to that it's competitors are making (at a given price point), and is better than the equipment the prospective customers are already using. Each assumes that Moore's law applies to the competitors, so they'll buy exponential quality increases at any price. To have the best chance of "saving the internet", we need someone to create a couple fabberies capable of producing short runs of basic chips. Also, we need a new motherboard design that minimizes the number of kinds of chips needed to function, and has everything socketed for easy repair. But such fabberies wouldn't do well under capitalism, since the computers they produce wouldn't be truly needed for many years. In the present, their products would offer inferior performance than the competition. Just after the crash, we'll be able to coast on the computers already produced by the old system. Especially if there is a population collapse (and there needs to be to avoid worse trouble), leaving many good computers un-owned. It's when the legacy computers wear out that we'll truly need them, and without special effort the knowledge to build any kind of fabbery would be lost by then. One possible way to make the fabberies a little more self-sustaining is to have them also produce quality solar cells. Most solar cells are built using a simple process that produces adequate results at a good cost. But, using the sort of equipment that can also produce chips, it's possible to make solar cells that have a higher efficiency. And in a hard crash, working solar cells will probably be quite valuable.
dougald		#10	[-]
Posts: 1 (12/30/08 07:11:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The values of the hacker community are in many cases closer to that of drop-outs (in this forum's positive sense of the term), than they are to civilized non-hackers. This made me think of a chapter in Derrick Jensen's 'Endgame: Part Two', where he meets a pair of hackers who tell him they're ready to bring down civilisation and believe this could be achieved by a fairly small group of people with their skills. I kind of assume Ran had that book in mind when he wrote this bit in 'Beyond Civilized and Primitive': What I fear is that some writers are trying to inspire a movement to actively cause a hard collapse, and if they attract enough of the most dangerous kind of person, ideologues without intelligence, they could succeed. This would be a terrible mistake -- not just a moral mistake but a strategic mistake -- and the root of it is old-fashioned authoritarian thinking: that if you force someone to do something, it's the same as if they do it on their own. In fact it's exactly the opposite. The more we are forced to abandon this system, the less we will learn, and the more aggressively we will fight to rebuild something like it. And the more we choose to abandon it, the more we will learn, and the less likely we will make the same mistakes. Jensen's contacts may be exaggerating when they say that a handful of hackers could bring down civilisation - or they may be right, I don't know - but our society does seem precariously reliant on networked technologies. That applies on a global level, as with the computerised shipping systems they talk about sabotaging in 'Endgame', but also on a personal level, where we increasingly outsource our social connections to Gmail and the memory on our mobile phones. (At least, I know I do - when my phone battery ran out the other day, I was alarmed to realise there was only one member of my family whose number I knew by heart.) So, alongside these "fabberies" that might secure the survival of computing technology, perhaps there is a parallel project to minimise our dependency on these systems?
PlatonicPimp		#11	[-]
Posts: 67 (12/31/08 07:11:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have a general rule, that I will only use a computer for things I could not do without the computer. By which I mean, I will use my computer to hold Hundreds of rexts and thousands of images, to communicate with people and expose myself to new ideas over the internet, but I will not use it to tell the time or as a day planner or as a notepad. The ony thing I allow it to take over are luxuries, and even then only if I can't do it any other way. I kinda wish we'd look at a lot more technology that way. It makes more sense, though, when you are self-sufficient, to go with lower energy solutions to issues, with "low tech." "High tech", that is, the technology of global capitalism, seems easier because someone else is doing most of the labor. When you do the labor yourself, it doesn't seem so easy anymore. Take the dishwasher: It's easier (barely) than washing a buttload of dishes. But if you first had to build your dishwasher (or if you even just took into account the amount of work-hours it took to earn the money to buy the dishwasher), You'd prbably skip it and just wash your dishes by hand. Similarly, since my computer is linux-based and I do my own stuff, getting my computer to do a specific thing involves a lot of work on my part. It's rewarding work, but if I can do the task without going through the trouble, I just skip it. Things I find the computer can do that I value and want to be able to continue to do: Store the equivalent of a large library's worth of knowledge on a device I can carry, connect with others near-instantaneously, combine the functions of several other devices, readily adaptable technology. Anyway, my Ideal self carries a knife, some rope, a water bottle and a computer.
michael		#12	[-]
Posts: 49 (01/08/09 14:17:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	dougald wrote: So, alongside these "fabberies" that might secure the survival of computing technology, perhaps there is a parallel project to minimise our dependency on these systems? Problem is, trying to produce a backup basket for the eggs so easily carried by the Internet, without using semiconductors, would consume a lot of energy and human time. We'd have to use books -- lots of them. Since they don't last forever, and can only be used by one person at a time, a lot of copying will need to be done. This implies a massive effort to produce paper and ink, as well as a lot of boring copying work to be inflicted on the population. Paper and writing instruments will also be needed for people's temporary notes and calculations. Computers are very useful for self-directed independent study. Without them, it will be necessary to revert to conventional schooling to transmit knowledge, which is more painful for the learners. Note that books and computers have completely different sustainability hazards. With books, the problem is similar to that faced by cars or farming -- it's a project that requires an ongoing energy input to maintain the benefits. With computers, the average energy cost is very low for the benefits conferred, but computer parts can only be produced in massive batches with a substantial instantaneous energy cost.
zombans		#13	[-]
Posts: 421 (01/08/09 15:41:47) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Or we could revert to unconventional schooling, which is not the least bit painful to the learner. Unschooling is a viable method, whether you're 8 or 35 and want to learn. Warning, anecdote: Yesterday my daughter was collaging and painting, fixing up our useless refrigerator magnets into objects d'art. She then pushed me out of the way in front of the computer, so she could take her hand at touching up a line drawing I did for a project I am working on. After messing around with photoshop for an hour, she emphatically declared she was going to be a graphic designer when she grew up (the other professions of the day were artist, hair saloner (her term), and veterinarian). Myself, I am learning so much about soil my head feels like it is splitting open. Personally, I prefer books over the internet for learning, although books are never quite up to date as the data online. But still. Some skills and information are timeless. My books seem to last longer than my computers. carey
michael		#14	[-]
Posts: 50 (01/09/09 17:57:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zombans wrote: Or we could revert to unconventional schooling, which is not the least bit painful to the learner. Unschooling is a viable method, whether you're 8 or 35 and want to learn. My point was that a computerless future will hurt unconventional schooling badly. Most people won't be lucky enough to live near a complete library, so they won't be able to research topics that specifically interest them. (Remember, long range transport is also endangered.) Personally, I prefer books over the internet for learning, although books are never quite up to date as the data online. But still. Some skills and information are timeless. My books seem to last longer than my computers. But your books are much better than would be available in a computerless world. Computerized typesetting can produce much better results than some neo-monk copying by hand....
zombans		#15	[-]
Posts: 426 (01/10/09 11:08:45) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	We have what we half-jokingly refer to as a post-apocalyptic seed library. A lot of our books were printed pre-computer age. I have to order a lot of books I am interested in reading through inter-library loan, because my library says my interests are obscure. They seem to have a complete selection of romance novels, though. And I live in a state capital! Knowledge will be around. It may be harder to find, and might possibly be appreciated more. I hope our society can go forward into being generalists again. It will be nice if knowledge such as growing food, building shelter, and feeding and entertaining ourselves becomes more widespread. carey
freecookies		#16	[-]
Posts: 12 (01/13/09 12:44:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	michael wrote: Recently, Ran has posted that we are seeing the beginning of the Collapse "35 years in the past when American domestic oil production began to decline". This puts the date of collapse at 1973. But if so, that puts the entire history of the personal computer within the Era of Collapse.... All people had before then was television, which is a decidedly mixed blessing. Speaking of computers, it's notable that they have two contradictory effects on collapsism. On the one hand, the fact that a collapse to hunting and gathering would mean no semiconductor technology is perhaps the best reason to resist such collapse civilization can offer. On the other hand, without widespread PCs and the Internet, entities like Anthropik and the Archdruid would not have their soapboxes. Things aren't that cut and dried. Computers existed before 1973. You could say the first computers were built in 1945 or so. They didn't become economically accessible until the early '80s, I'd say, with the '90s being the time everyone who wanted one, had one. I'm not sure which side of things computers fall on. Does there have to be sides? I think before the internet, it was easier for the elite to keep information out of people's heads. Now, it's getting harder and harder. I think computers mattered, insofar as they enabled the internet to function. All I know, when I first saw the internet, I jumped on it and never looked back. When I started seeing the rise of the one-man internet newspaper, I ditched CNN and UPI and never looked back either.
michael		#17	[-]
Posts: 51 (01/13/09 20:23:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	freecookies wrote: Things aren't that cut and dried. Computers existed before 1973. I know that, that's why I said "history of the personal computer". (The first programmer lived from 1815-1852...) Before it became possible for ordinary folks to have then in their homes, the effect of computers on society was very minor. And much of the development of computers and networking took place after they went mainstream. I'm not sure which side of things computers fall on. Does there have to be sides? I think computers count as a third side, if any. Computer lovers are basically forced into an alliance with the "Civilizationists", since most primitivists don't have any plan to sustain semiconductor production. But those two sides don't actually like each other that much. Note that while some people are bonded to computers the way certain people wish they were bonded to "Nature", many folks just use them as tools, and are not part of the "computer team" in this three-sided game.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Computers and the Beginning of the End

Computers and the Beginning of the End

Quick Reply