[quetzalcoatl]

The technological system is a concrete ensemble, not a constructed system intended merely for descriptive analysis...

What is the ultimate point of your analysis, and what do you wish to do? What you are describing is nothing more than society itself. It is true that human interactions, viewed as a whole, constitute a system which is greater than the sum of its parts - formally, this is called a complex adaptive system, and the properties of such systems have been studied extensively.

One of the properties of a CAS is a strong tendency towards increased complexity; it is much easier to add elements of complexity and problematic to subtract them. Taken to a certain level this can lead to system-wide fragility. There are rational ways of dealing with this and irrational ways. A rational way would be to encourage diffuse power structures with a very large number of nodal points, rather that a fewer nodes with outwardly branching structures. An irrational way would be to insist that everyone grow their own food, construct their own homes, weave their clothes. and build their furniture - this is the logical outcome of your analysis. There is no way of eliminating the systemic elements of human interaction other than by reducing individuals to isolated monads.

And even if you were to achieve such a Pol-Potian utopia, it would simply start the cycle anew. You are fighting human nature, not technology.

[SolarCross]

1) fungus is one solution, but do we see it being used or promoted? No, for "such a simple thing" we see nothing happening to do it.
2) Even w/ nitrogen fixation, farm equipment still runs off fuel.

1) You don't see it being promoted because it isn't necessary yet.
2) The universe is awash with energy on a literally astronomical scale such that your feverish little brain cannot even begin to concieve, there will always be energy to run tractors or bio-gel tanks or whatever.
So relax there is no need for you to commit hari-kari to save the species, just let the clever people take care of it.

[Figlio di Moros]

By the time it is necessary, Taxizen, it'll become increasingly more expensive, not to mention lag-time can mean population crash. It's not as if this is something ready to switch on the second humanity collectively realizes it's fucked.

[SolarCross]

By the time it is necessary, Taxizen, it'll become increasingly more expensive, not to mention lag-time can mean population crash. It's not as if this is something ready to switch on the second humanity collectively realizes it's fucked.

How would you know? Look we have all heard you end timers with your wild eyed and rambling prophecies of doom: the apocalypse, y2k bug, planet niburu, etc etc yawn. Shit happens and then we adapt and life goes on, so quit worrying about stuff you can't do anything about and that probably won't happen anyway.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Mankind has suffered numerous devastations throughout history. Just because you are used to a relatively normal life doesn't mean that can't change. It's no secret life on earth is unstable. We already witnessed two world wars last century and were on the brink of nuclear holocaust more than just once. You can't destroy life on earth with spears and swords you could destroy all life on earth ten times over with all the nukes floating around these days.
I'm not saying give up your job and move into a bunker, but the fact is technology has brought us close to destruction in more than one way.

[Figlio di Moros]

How would you know? Look we have all heard you end timers with your wild eyed and rambling prophecies of doom: the apocalypse, y2k bug, planet niburu, etc etc yawn. Shit happens and then we adapt and life goes on, so quit worrying about stuff you can't do anything about and that probably won't happen anyway.

I would know because I actually look at economic mechanisms rather than blindly praying to free market Jesus. Agriculture is one of the many ramifications of Peak Oil, and would happen rather quickly given production would decrease exponentially. Sorry if I don't take "Shit happens, so what if 80% of the world dies? The market will recovery, eventually" as consolation.

Of course if you just close your eyes to a problem, there was nothing you could do about it. Except, you know, not ignore it before hand.

[SolarCross]

Ok Nostradamus I'll bite, what is your heroic plan for saving humanity from the carbon based food forms running out? (carbon - one of the more common elements in the universe and not very likely to go extinct but never mind that for now)

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Well someone could have said the same thing 9000 years ago around the time agriculture was starting to be efficient enough to produce food surpluses and when the total world population was numbered in the millions rather than the billions and it would be no less true or silly. Probably in a thousand years time when the human population is numbered in the trillions and spread across the solar system, there will still be nitwits saying the solar system is overpopulated.

Explore the solar system? We can't even afford to go to the moon any more and that's with a joint international space programme.
Just because mankind explores the stars in Hollywood doesn't mean that's what the future of mankind will be like.
If i were a gambler id put my house on nuclear Armageddon before faster than light space travel.

[SolarCross]

Explore the solar system? We can't even afford to go to the moon any more and that's with a joint international space programme.
Just because mankind explores the stars in Hollywood doesn't mean that's what the future of mankind will be like.
If i were a gambler id put my house on nuclear Armageddon before faster than light space travel.

I said in a thousand years...

[Figlio di Moros]

Which you can put your money on, because entering an actual dark age isn't possible?

[Someone5]

I think there is a valid point to be made about how technological relations engender alienation, comodification and consumption and thus should be criticised from a left perspective.

That's not really about technology though, that's about how its used and how it fits into a consumer culture.

[Technology]

Something close to an anarchy will only be achievable if people have economic security, and true security is self dependent. Otherwise your supposed security comes at the whim of a government or corporation, or... any other entity exterior to your will.

However, with the abundant ill-equipped in our societies, and the need for human labor, the system locks the weak into dependance, the able into toil, and elevates the privileged into the position of masters. This is the driver of so much of the tension between individuals and the collective which drives the existence of coercive hierarchy.

The only way to truly deal with that is to automate much of the economy, and shovel money and research teams at AI and automation problems until they are solved, long down the line in the future. To focus on decentralizing energy through solar cells, and decentralizing the means of production through further developments in devices like 3D printers, and eventually to create even replicable robots.

If each person has possession of at least one replicating machine, or robot, then they are free to rely on the work of a being (or beings) which would not have the design to suffer or desire differently, and this would be subject to their individual whim as owners as opposed to the whim of the state.

Only then, far in the future, would something close to anarchy be possible. Only when we have personal robots, and appliances which act to grow food indoors, in processes more advanced than the high yield hydro and aeroponics of today. Only then, when we can create self-regulating systems that are extensions and expansions on our limited abilities to provide for our own comfort, will we be freed from dependance on others. Only a utopia brings even the remotest possibility of anarchy, and only technology brings even the remotest possibility of a utopia.

Without a technical means to change what people can do and how they relate to others, all you're doing is pulling social levers and engaging in your own coercion if you attempt to put it into practice. Anarchy needs technology to work.

[AFAIK]

Technology typically passes through three stages of affordability.

In the 1st stage it is incredibly expensive and only owned by the wealthiest elites.
In the 2nd stage everyone is able to own 1 copy of the technology.
In the 3rd stage the technology is ubiquitous and so cheap as to be disposable.

Paper passed through these stages over the course of several centuries.
Micro-chips are on the verge of firmly entering stage 3 after decades of existence.
3-D printing may allow "the means of production" to become more affordable and widely available in the near future.

There was a time when literacy rates were low and scholars had a lot of authority. Theocracies developed, which strongly resisted the introduction of the printing press and the spread of literacy because these developments undermined the authority of the elites.

Tech has the potential to be socially liberating more often than not.

[Eran]

I would know because I actually look at economic mechanisms rather than blindly praying to free market Jesus. Agriculture is one of the many ramifications of Peak Oil, and would happen rather quickly given production would decrease exponentially. Sorry if I don't take "Shit happens, so what if 80% of the world dies? The market will recovery, eventually" as consolation.

Since you look at economic mechanisms, can you explain how Peak Oil is consistent with future oil prices being significantly lower than spot prices? I mean, wouldn't you expect professionals who risk their money in that market to be equally aware of just how scarce oil is going to be, and price the futures significantly higher than the spot?

[Someone5]

At least you admit that you are an enemy to human freedom. If only more techno-spergs would be so honest.

A) Without technological progress, most of humanity will die by the end of the century.
B) Technology can be extremely liberating, if employed towards those ends. Technology isn't the problem, elite control over capital is the problem.
C) Without the technology we have in place today, virtually everyone would be enslaved to the farm. Literally without industrial, mechanized agriculture, 90% of the population has to work on farms just to feed themselves. There is no way that manual labor would be sufficient to maintain the current carrying capacity either--there is simply no way to turn the clock back on technological progress.

[Eran]

Unusually, I agree 100% with Someone5 on his points.

[Paradigm]

A) Without technological progress, most of humanity will die by the end of the century.
B) Technology can be extremely liberating, if employed towards those ends. Technology isn't the problem, elite control over capital is the problem.
C) Without the technology we have in place today, virtually everyone would be enslaved to the farm. Literally without industrial, mechanized agriculture, 90% of the population has to work on farms just to feed themselves. There is no way that manual labor would be sufficient to maintain the current carrying capacity either--there is simply no way to turn the clock back on technological progress.

The problem is that modern industrialized agriculture is completely unsustainable. It causes soil depletion, erosion, fertilizer runoff, and a whole host of other environmental problems that pretty much constitute a ticking time bomb. I'm no primitivist. I do believe technology can be useful. But in order to begin to set ourselves on a sustainable course, we're going to have to change pretty much everything about our system of agriculture.

[Eran]

The problem is that modern industrialized agriculture is completely unsustainable.
...
But in order to begin to set ourselves on a sustainable course, we're going to have to change pretty much everything about our system of agriculture.

Just one of the many great things about free markets is how adaptive they are. If modern, industrialized agriculture is unsustainable (and I am far from convinced it isn't), we will see the prices of progressively-scarcer resources go up (e.g. good land or fertilizers) and with that, a push towards the development of more viable alternatives.

[Someone5]

The problem is that modern industrialized agriculture is completely unsustainable. It causes soil depletion, erosion, fertilizer runoff, and a whole host of other environmental problems that pretty much constitute a ticking time bomb. I'm no primitivist. I do believe technology can be useful. But in order to begin to set ourselves on a sustainable course, we're going to have to change pretty much everything about our system of agriculture.

I'm not sure it can be characterized as unsustainable, because if people are willing to pay the prices involved it most certainly can persist.

[mikema63]

we're going to have to change pretty much everything about our system of agriculture.

GMO, for example we could drastically reduce fertilizer use by engineering symbiotic fungus (called mychorhizzae) to also include the nitrogen fixation genes of certain bacteria (a single gene, a very simple process).

These fungus actually associate with the walls of the roots and can even go into the roots and associate with plant cells and help with water and nutrient absorption. Nitrogen is also a major reason we use so much fossil fuels in our agricultural process.

Adopting such a GMO universally would cut our fossil fuel use drastically almost overnight.