So through the course of these posts, I've praised the philosophical tenets and practical results of open source programming to the moon, and then proceeded to give the whole technological edifice a philosophical browbeating by delineating multiple interconnected problems associated with it. What exactly am I driving at here?
To look over problems of this scope of complexity and indeterminacy, one is forced into a state of indecision, on the intellectual level of course. Come tomorrow it could be raining bullets, Molotov cocktails, boiling water, or what have you, and I would proceed to whatever solution was appropriate and that would put an end to the discussion decisively, and things would become a bit more simple. But while we are here...
Solutions? I admit that this is pretty speculative, as I only have a limited knowledge of what is being worked on in the open source world, and limited knowledge of the community itself, and how well all this is going to work in the real world. It doesn't hurt to think about what possibilities these solutions pose however.
There is also the question of whether it would be more prudent to abandon high technology altogether and pursue deliberate simplicity, considering the seriousness of the rising cascade of problems facing the modern world. But for this series of posts, let's hold the assumption that substantial portions of computing and networking technologies are precious resources and will prove valuable for managing the crises ahead. But how to separate the good from the bad? How to salvage high technologies from the greedy grasp of global capital, and the paranoid clutches of governments around the world? How to maintain simplified versions of these technologies on lower energy inputs and slimmer resource stores?
First let's consider the Internet as it exists in its centralized state. Many programmers are spooked by the vast surveillance systems being implemented by US agencies, and are angered over the deliberate weaknesses and inferior functions foisted on the Internet infrastructure in order to create security back-doors.
A large proportion of the American public is deftly afraid of its own shadow. All the news media has to do is show an angry, bearded brown face and declare it the next supervillain, and all the TV consuming suburbanites are up off their couches, circling their carpets, squawking about the coming reign of terror from the East.
What can you expect from a nation whose majority feels that post-911 CIA interrogation techniques were justified? Though of course we have to ask how the survey was phrased. Surely asking outright whether "torture" was justified would invoke a little more hesitancy. This is the problem with a nation that is kept completely in the dark from its own international activities; its citizens are forced to gauge their "feelings" with certain weasel words like "interrogation technique."
But I digress. My point is that the centralized Internet as it exists is already under extensive surveillance, and the US government could easily go much further, most likely with the blessing of a majority of the population. Artificial hysterias have most Americans besides themselves with fear; what will happen when another real crisis actually hits? Plenty of governments around the world already censor their regions. Net neutrality is still a policy, but every year the telecoms throw more and more lawyers and money out to get the Internet cableized, and when that happens they will control a large portion of information as well.
This is on top of the talk that the infrastructure itself is dated and
rickety, and in serious need of a dramatic restructuring and redesign,
something that our rentier economy won't allow. Telecoms are making too
much money on the infrastructure as it exists, and there is no public
financing available for such an undertaking. Everyone is using this
infrastructure! A mere construction project for a rail line can be
scuttled within weeks due to corruption, incompetency, and suspicion among communities. Do
we really believe this society is capable of such a massive project?
Yes, there's no telling what can happen. But when one sets out to cross a rickety bridge, and sees that its ropes are frayed and its slats rotten through, one doesn't entertain wishy washy thoughts about whether the bridge will hold. One decides not to cross.
Anyway, these are the sentiments felt by many open source programmers, who are working diligently on decentralized peer-to-peer networks, experimental parallel Internet infrastructure, cutting edge encryption, and the like.
The idea is to adopt the principles and technologies of an Internet network in a more fragmented and decentralized form, to preserve its usefulness for communities actually interested in not destroying the world. Communication is very important, as well as the sharing of knowledge. Could these systems be preserved?
We should ask about the technical requirements of such an undertaking, and the resources needed for such a project. We should want to still benefit from computers and their many uses, as well as databases of knowledge to preserve through crises, and the superior communication capabilities of Internet infrastructure, however decentralized it becomes.
It does take energy to run these things. Where will the energy come from? Can these systems be scaled down to accept renewables? It also takes resources to maintain these systems. Computer screens go out. Hard-drives degrade over time, etc.
Whatever solution arises, it would be ill-advised to depend on massive market-based supply chains, mechanized mines, and petroleum-based energy.
This requirement ties in with an interesting development in the meaning of "hacking." For as long as I can remember, hacking had this high-tech and often subversive meaning, bringing to mind images of sleuthing programmers breaking into high-security networks with sophisticated technologies and programming chops. In some ways this meaning still stands, but it stands predominantly in the mainstream.
In these hacker communities themselves, the term has undergone a change, doubtlessly due to the necessities posed by a contracting economy and an uncertain future. Now it simply stands in as a general activity of tinkering with existing technologies, infrastructures, and built objects. To hack something is to alter it and re-purpose it for one's own ends. This is a skill that confers respect for the hacker that can cobble together scrap resources and components from broken devices and build a functioning unit out of these scraps.
A similar skill has gained respect in various parts in Africa, where much of the West's electronic waste is shipped. There skilled hackers can strip broken devices of copper wiring, circuit boards, batteries, and other components, and build working units to trade in or use themselves.
Perhaps this is one route to regular maintenance and even construction of decentralized networks of computers and databases, with these repurposed devices made to work with some sort of decentralized network protocol. There will certainly be no shortage of electronic waste to utilize, to be sure. Of course energy is another question altogether. But peer to peer networked computers would require much less energy than a centralized server.
And open source programming and hacking communities have become much more porous. These communities are interfacing with political activists, spiritual thinkers, philosophers, gardeners, musicians, you name it. All as individuals themselves are adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, with interests spreading to multiple disciplines as the luxury of specialization fades with the trust in a centralized power.
Much speculation, yes. But food for thought.
