The Marcin & Keimform Dialogue
Die Debatte über die Möglichkeit und Unmöglichkeit von Peer Ökonomie gewinnt eine neue Facette. Marcin Jakubowski hat mich vor wenigen Tagen bezüglich einer Kampagne „1000 True Fans – 1000 Global Villages “ kontaktiert, die der Arbeit von Open Source Ecology eine neue Schlagkraft geben soll. Darin lädt er zu einer aktiven monetären Unterstützung von 10 Euro oder 10 Dollar pro Monat ein, um das Global Village Construction Set replizierbar zu machen. Er lädt auch dazu ein, dass sich Repräsentanten der Open Source und Peer-to-Peer Kultur gemeinsam hinter diesen Projektvorschlag stellen. Dafür soll der Entwicklungsplan von Open Source Ecology wesentliche Fortschritte auf Gebieten bringen, die bis jetzt noch nicht wirklich tief – oder noch gar nicht – berührt wurden, um eine tragfähige Struktur der in sich kreislaufmässig verbundenen Technologien einer lokalen solidarischen Ökonomie sichtbar zu machen. Open Source Ecology möchte sich in vier Kernbereichen engagieren und noch zu spezifizierende Entwicklungsziele vorlegen:
1. Dezentrale Fabrikation:
We are talking about FabLab delivering the promise of Bergmann’s Personal Fabricator – except for real.That means high skill and open source equipment, coupled with global design. The promise is producing any tool in a hardware store, any piece of electronics and elecromechanical equipment. You go to the hardware store today. All items there could be produced, realistically and cost-effectively – with FabLab – delivering the promise of Gandhi’s mass production by production by the masses.
2. Ökologische Materialien auf Basis systematischer Phytochemie:
This is the integration of gene bank (plant propagation, animal stock, microcultures), productive farm, ag equipment, processing – for local food sufficiency. The core of it is to collect a base of the above, and make it self-replicating. Applications are CSA startups, Community Supported Production, food sufficiency. I am proposing that an individual, if prepared and equipped, can produce 100% of their diet with a 1 hour per day requirement – as one application of the package. The package includes a robust equipment infrastructure based on a flexible tractor and up to agricultural combine, plus ancillary food/fiber/fuel/natural product processing capacity. Products include pyrolysis oil fuel, lumber, rubber from dandelions, clothing fiber, plant chemistry, etc. It’s the whole package. No compromises. All chemistry derived from petroleum can be derived from plants, renewably.
Our present status is identifying and collecting at our site the entire genetic repository. We have already made significant progress on the necessary equipment infrastructure, as you probably know from studying openfarmtech.org/weblog.
3. Solar Toolkit
With our solar turbine, we aim at breakthrough cost reduction, like with the CEB press – by open source development. An open source steam engine is used, and it also powers LifeTrac infrastructure. Such energy fuels an entire neo-industrial apparatus of a peer economy. Big news on this one is that in the last week, we struck a collaboration with some UK PhDs, who are devising an open system with similar breakthrough cost predictions. (I will visit with them after Oekonux)
4. LifeTrac, CEB und andere Werkzeuge der Landbearbeitung – zusammengehalten von einer modularen mustersprachlichen Grundkonzeption
I can show that a robust, lifetime design package costing about $20k can displace about $500k worth of agricultural, construction, and other utility equipment, including cars, where an engineless chassis can be considered a ‘tractor implement.’ Breakthrough. My experience has shown me how this is achievable in practice. Truly an example of modular open source technology pattern language. This infrastructure is highly relevant to CSP (community supported production), and also to individuals. The key is lifetime design with friendly user interface. Includes CEB and sawmill – for modular housing units – as tractor implements. Powers the Multimachine as an implement
Marcin möchte das wirklich als praktischen Bereich gegen die Einwendungen zum P2P Programm verstanden wissen, wie sie unlängst von Werner Imhof hier geäußert wurden. Er gruppiert die Haupteinwände:
B. Popular misconceptions that I want to adress:
i. Nonproducers thinking that GVCS does not apply to them
ii. People think that social organization leads to technology, I claim that technology for survival and thriving leads to social organization
iii. Misunderstanding of low entry barriers to become producers
iv. Misunderstanding where people think that we already have optimal technology (part of cultural conditioning)
v. People believing that local regions don’t have enough resources for cultural and scientific advancement
In der Folge entspann sich zwischen Marcin und mir ein Briefwechsel, den ich hier auf Wunsch Marcins zitiere, um seinen Standpunkt klarer zu machen und auch die direkte Debatte auf Keimform vorzubereiten.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Franz Nahrada wrote and Marcin Jakubowski answered:
the fablab issue is a very serious one: its not enough to point at the
practise of automation in factories, but prove that versatility and
productivity is truly possible at a lower scale. There is currently also a
very serious debate going on on the Keimform site (the more successful
offspring of oekonux) if this really can be achieved in short terms. I
totally agree with you that automation-supported local fabrication is an
issue but I say that we have no precise vision…..
I aim to address this point fully, and bring the clarity to the Keimform group as a result. This is where we have to work together. I will pass the attempt at precise vision, and I think after a few iterations, you guys will see the applications very clearly. To me, the possibility and process to get there are as clear as day. I don’t mean to sound haughty here, but I believe that I have worked this out in theory and practice. Fiery discussion is therefore forthcoming.
……. here yet and also a lack of people consequently following that vision. Here is the Keimfom debate with Werner Imhof, in case somebody in your team speaks German: http://www.keimform.de/2008/11/29/werner-imhof-zur-kritik-der-peer-oekonomie
Retos last comment says: „Marcin und sein Team bauen mit einfachsten Produktionsmitteln (Schweissbrenner, Handmaschinen zur Metallbearbeitung) funktionierende Maschinen (LifeTrac, CEB Press), welche wiederum Produktionsmittel für weitere Produktionsprozesse sind. Aber richtig: irgendwer muss erstens das Halbzeugs herstellen (Metallprofile) und zweitens die Maschinen und Werkzeuge …“
which translates into: „Marcin and his team build with simple production tools (Handmachines for Metal treatmend, Blowpipe (welding torch) other machines that work (LifeTrac, CEB Press), which are again means of production for other Processes. But indeed: somebody has to produce the semifinished parts (metal profiles) and also the original machines and tools“
This question is addressed via metal casting. At this level, YOU can produce the ’semifinished parts‘ and original machines. You see, I have stepped one step below. It is not sufficient to produce the machines – but the source of the machines. That is the very metal itself. Ex: I go down the fence row of my farmer neighbor, and pick up old farm implements. I melt them down. I cast them into structural members for LifeTrac.
This was difficult for me to understand as well – I hear your point. I was struggling with how to get deep enough that we have controlf over the technology. And the simple answer is – you have to go deeper. The liberation to me came from understanding that we CAN go deeper. It’s as simple as 3D cast molds via RepRap or equivalent, then metal casting, then machining.
If this is not comprehensible to you, then you have to wait for about 6 months to see the reaility.
We’re currently workign on the metal casting part – and will demonstrate that we can get the structure of the machine, and then the actual cylinders and valves – from scrap metal. That means The Liberator will cost you $100 to make. Yes, that is correct. You have to provide labor. Unreplicable? Replicable if we operate a Community Supported Production operation where we make workshops where people can do this themselves with expert guidance – so, say you pay $100 for materials and $500 for the workshop – as a possible business model. My friend, these are real insights into the forthcoming economy of abundance.
This we can show right now – next 6 months. I think in 3 years, we’ll get aluminum and silicon, refined from local clay – if the solar turbine works like it should (for electricity). That’s why I am so excited about the solar turbine. You need electricity for an advanced postindustrial apparatus.
Second issue: not to approach those who do not „openly display open culture“: I have written a blog post on the earth compression guy in globalvillages in this respect.
Sure, but still you’re operating with people who don’t truly have enough of a culture of abundance to make it worth our time. I still think there are enough people with open culture that can collaborate without entry barriers. They may not have skills, but it’s easier to teach than to change someone’s mind.
Since I have gained the insight on technology tha I now have (and WILL be able to teach soon to others), I think it’s much easier to create from scratch. The ‚magical inventions‘ of the people you mention are not much more than little fleas on the body of an elephant – they all build on a vast pool of knowledge that is available already.
In my opionion, the approach of starting development from scratch is more cost effective. That’s what we’re doing.
The third issue is really just about the name. Be it Photovoltaics, be it Solar Turine, these are just special cases of the fact that the sun is sending 18.000 times more energy than we use currently to our planet at any time.
Yesterday we had a project meeting and someone came to the idea to draw on a Google Map of Africa the tiny spot in the desert of Sahara that could feed the energy needs of the whole planet. It was a very powerful visualisation. So if we just say Solar Toolkit it would be better.
I agree with you that existing businesses are difficult to change, but we
see examples of cmmunity led industries allready in the free software world. We must work on both sides: increase the „last mile autonomy“ where we can – and increase the willingness of existing production capacities and their owners to shift to community led schemes because this is a reliable and accountable market for them. Its not even necessary to „buy them out“ – it is necessary to set the standards and take the lead in the definition of production. The message of GIVE includes the „mothercities“, – industrial centers that are surviving by shifting to support
post-industrial development. Only if we can turn this into a synergy, we can manage the transition to more and more postindustrial local capacities well. It takes the knowledge and inputs from the whole globe to make a Global Village happen, its autonomous in one way but totally linked in
Show me implementations.
The practical path to ‚mothercities‘ is micro-mothercities like Factor e Farm. You have to go a step at a time. My critique of your approach is that you propose the grand vision, not the boring day-to-day program for implementation …. 🙂 ….The system interface of OS to mainstream will work itself out. Don’t worry about reform. There is no force as powerful as CREATION.
Ok. Pass on my brief discussion on technology to Keimform. We need to get that discussion started with you. It will be the Marcin-Keimform dialogues.
Ich krieg das nicht auseinanderklamüsert was da von Franz ist und was von Marcin. Irgendwie unübersichtliches layout…
Ach, im ersten Teil ist alles Deutsche von mir und alles Englische von Marcin, im zweiten Teil alles kursive von mir und alles grade von Marcin.
Ich habe nicht verstanden, warum es leichter sein soll, alles von Grund auf (»from scratch«) zu entwickeln, also nicht die Halbzeuge, sondern das Rohmetall (»the very metal«). Das Metall selbst zu produzieren, kommt mir sehr aufwändig vor.
Wenn wir hier englich posten könnten, wäre es für Marcin leichter sich darauf zu beziehen. Ich bin ja auch gespannt auf seine Antworten.
Sorry, then again my question in english. Marcin, I did not understand, why it should be easier to develop »from scratch« and why not to use semifinished parts, but »the very metal«. Producing metal seems to me technically most demanding.
We presently do use semifinished parts as you say. This, however, injects high cost into the project, and is vulnerable to disruption and outside control. For this reason, it is desirable to start from scratch.
Moreover – upon closer technical review and sociological critique – it turns out that there is much inferior design. Such design is influenced primarily by the interests of capital – not maximum service to real human beings.
By metal – we mean that at least the first two or more of the following are done: melting, casting, machining, or coatings/hardening.
I will not get into lengthy discussion here outside of encouraging you to keep following our work. Presently, we are installing said metal casting infrastructure. Our goal is to demonstrate that The Liberator can be produced not at the $2000 cost of materials – but for about $200 in materials – when we utilize casting to produce the necessary steel components. The promise of this is extraordinary – as it hints at the closing of the industrial divide between the rich and poor countries. If the necessary techniques are open source, this can be done in both the first and third world countries.
The other disclaimer is that this potential is far beyond any current centralist models of production – and is therefore met with great skepticism by just about everyone – outside of those people who have the insight and open mind to accept the possibility.
I’d rather not speculate here, however. We will be testing these concepts in 2009.