https://twitter.com/csmaje/status/1685665447704715264?s=20
Smaje:
Capitalism & socialism are often contrasted, but their shared modernist political grounding creates numerous overlaps. One of them is a tendency to think that human social organisation can master the vicissitudes of human & biophysical history 23/27
I find civic republicanism & other traditions more plausible. They’re not about quiescently waiting for ‘disaster’, but they’re able to build negative or disastrous contingency into their political account 24/27
I agree with the likes of McCarraher & Hine - capitalism is more of a surface problem, modernity itself being a deeper underlying one. Hence I find ecosocialist correctives to capitalist resource dynamics inadequate. There's a deeper cultural & spiritual problem to address 25/27
Laocoon:
Can you recapitulate the definition of modernity at work here?
Smaje:
Roughly, ideas like a break with past history into true knowledge, an unfolding dynamic of human progress driven by social forces (markets, utility, class struggle), an emphasis on the material & practical & on instrumental control as the motor of progress, mass organisation etc
My own elaboration of that last point:
'Mass organization' might include the idea that the solution to most human problems is to build some large organizational structure or institution; or to try to steer the behavior of existing such organizations through mass protest.
This diagnosis seems right: capitalism as surface problem, modernity as the underlying, deeper problem.
How, though, to begin to tackle or unravel modernism?
Short sketch of a response:
Security:
Sovereignty:
Projects:
HQ: 43.82994030485036, -72.61699905013958
Sweet-p:
nice reference for making low-leakage voltage divider for circuit: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/battery-monitoring-voltage-divider/
suggests using high value resistors, with cap across 'lower' resistor on the voltage divider
also interesting that measuring voltage for li-on can be useful for assessing battery life; but for most other chemistries, not as much, because not as linear
Use a high-value resistor in the voltage divider circuit and put a capacitor in parallel with the low-side resistor.
For li-ion (except LFP), voltage measurement tends to be good enough, because the curve has a large span, and it's almost linear from about 100% to 10%: 4.2V-3.2V is 27% of the nominal voltage, a massive difference between full and empty!
For all other battery types, voltage measurement is almost useless, unless combined with a lot of other information.
Notes on updates to board:
Field school ideas:
no-weld bike trailer. various designs. experiments. document them. co-design them with folks. they can build the 'classic' kit or make modifications. different uses / tweaks. longer and shorter versions. version for carrying kayak, another bike, a small bike plus toddler, etc.
worries re: liability ... ?
How to reach out to like-minded folks.
A good description of the core idea, mission. The narrative.
What one is trying to do.
First attempts:
It's hard to know how to prepare for the future. Relocalization of the economy, choosing technologies that are more resilient and locally-produced, developing close connections with neighbors, developing some autonomy and learning how to produce the things we need -- these seem like things which, even if they prove 'unnecessary', are good projects, anyway, especially for youth.
So, a focus on pedagogy. Training this next generation to be generalists, curious, able to tackle whatever comes. They need to be able to grok the present level of technology -- especially the ubiquitous tech, what's likely to stay around, what's been mass-produced (for salvage) -- and also develop an affinity for the 'old tech', the pre-fossil-fuel approaches. They need to be students of supply chains. There is a huge amount to learn from the Global South -- folks where the 'future' has already hit. Looking for precedents.
The perspective 'low-tech magazine' is a great one -- including his research methods and approach.
There is a wide array of things to do, here; so, pick the highest-leverage, most-enjoyable ones.
E.g.:
Contigent, opportunitistic trajectories. One idea mentioned in Heinberg's work (and perhaps Friedemann's) is that the development of our technology followed a sort of 'serial contingent opportunity' path, in that e.g. we were able to bootstrap the distribution of fossil oil by using existing infrastructure for transporting whale oil. Currently, oil is the master resource; its properties as a source of energy (liquid at room temperature, relatively stable, cheap, high energy density) determine much of how our infrastructure and processes have been designed. So, unless we can substitute an energy source with the same properties, we're likely going to find that we have to redesign and rebuild much of our world. Which will require energy; if we wait until we run out of oil, we might be severely constrained in our redesign.
How to frame the transition. I've mostly been trying to get friends to recognize that we are going to be forced into an abrupt 'downshift'; with the idea that, once this fact is recognized, they'll be ready to collaborate on working together to adapt. So: I'll show people evidence for the need for a 'downshift', citing references, numbers -- making the argument that we are facing significant physical constraints on what will be possible shapes to our lives in the future.
But I've begun to see that this approach engenders pushback that derives from core cultural beliefs: that we oughtn't to give up so easily; that we should strive to continue onward even in the face of terrible odds; that we've always been able to 'find a way forward' in the past. The American culture of the 'technological hero'. It's exhibited in hundreds of films about space travel, shipwrecks, planewrecks, alien invasions, military conflicts, westerns, inventors. It's the quintessential American trope: 'never give up; you'll find a clever way out of this.'
On this framing, speaking of limits is 'giving up'.
But there is another core cultural trope: that of the oppressed underdog who rallies against the powers that be to break free, to strike out on their own. The heroic individual who maintains a strong sense of self and a vision of a better life, despite being in what seems like a hopeless, totalizing system; and who is able to impart this vision to others, and organize them against their oppressors.
In this latter vision, the ability to see 'beyond the veil of the concrete prison wall' -- to imagine or to recall that a better life is possible -- is valorized. The idea of freedom is so important that the hero is willing to forgo security and comfort, endure significant hardship, and risk nearly everything in order to achieve it.
I'm beginning to think that this latter cultural trope is the one to invoke. A better world is possible, but only if we build it ourselves. No one is coming to save us; it's up to us. We can create and inhabit a better world. It will require sacrifice, and deviating from the norm; but in the end we'll gain our dignity and our freedom.
This is the sense in which I've begun to feel that we should strive for a sort of 'full material sovereignty' in the world, with everything that this implies. It would likely require a drastic redesign of our life support systems; cooperation at a scale big enough to produce the necessities, but small enough to be governed in a democratic fashion. One might argue that true political sovereignty requires full material sovereignty.
And: the forms that full material sovereignty would take would be an 'adaptive' response to the climate future; and, realizing them would tend to reduce our impact on climate.
So: the best responses to our political gridlock, and to our climate catastrophe, are the same: full material sovereignty.