I agree but there’s a lot of detail about what activities a lower energy society precludes and my point is that energy intensive “AI” (mostly thinking about LLMs rather than targets applications of ML) probably aren’t part of it.

Yes that’s fair. I guess my comment wasn’t a direct response to yours other than it made me think this desire that all the difficult issues (like bias) just disappear if you remove all the humans from the process* is flawed and any anticapitalist society should really start from that understanding. One that understands that conflict will emerge and pro-social “convivial” systems and structures need to emerge to handle them.

*You are right to point out that the “AI” we are talking about is statistical models built from humans that includes bias where as the hype is that we have Data from Star Trek and therefore these systems hide the human inputs but don’t remove them.

To be honest I’m tempted to say that desire to remove humans from the production of society is a fundamentally capitalist one.

I get the sentiment and I wish it were true.

Some of the issues stem from material and energy limitations regardless of human organisation structures. Fossil Fuels are stored sunlight over a long period of time that means that burning them has a high yield and that’s given us a very high EROI society (one where there’s an abundance of energy for purposes that aren’t basic functioning).

I recommend reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter who discussing the energy limitations of society. Its before our understanding of energy limitations of technology and he’s by no means a leftist but it is still a good introductory text to it.

They don’t disappear if capitalism disappears. I agree with you capitalism needs to end in order to deal with them but there are hard issues that we have to deal with even with capitalism gone.

Even if the causes ceased we would still be left with residual emissions and degraded natural systems to try and deal with and a lower EROI society to do it.

It doesn’t solve the energy and emissions crisis we are facing but sure.

I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.

That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.

A functional :)

So… an English accent?

I read something about how the best outputs are done using a blend of make-up/models with CGI adding the layer of realism on top so pure CGI is worse but film studies pursue that because its cheaper and outsourcable compared with a heavy unionised make-up/prop workers.

Don’t leave us hanging - what was the one book that was so bad?

“Enjoys” is not how I would describe it.

Ethernet over power devices are surprisingly good.

Very cool!

I would add just a few points I think are relevant for the discussion. I think some buildings and areas might need to be actively targets for removal on the basis on a spatial plan that builds in “space for nature” by which I mean letting the land return as much as possible to some form of wilderness. We are sadly quite far down the process of completely shaping the land and its not clear that we will be able to get back but I suspect a serious and sustained attempt will be needed.

On the transport of the materials: nothing wrong with your choice of road vehicles salvaged and converted to a different fuel source but it’s also worth considering another solarpunk option. Building before the availability of combustion engines often used temporary, lightweight narrow gauge railways were laid for the duration of construction. This was also used during WW1 for logistics. Once finished the track can be moved onto the next area. I suspect the narrow gauge would limit the speed and weight of any uses but for this purpose I suspect that doesn’t strongly matter. I can’t find a good source on the internet about this that’s but I vagually recall a Tom Scott video which mentioned off hand that a monorail which is now a tourist attraction actually began life as a temporary railway for construction freight. Rail also could be used in conjunction with human power (a hand car) for workers to commute.

Keep up the good work!

Hi sorry for delay I wanted to read and absorb it before replying and my energy levels have been unpredictable.

There’s some cool and great stuff in here.

I got overwhelmed about airships trying to work out if they were viable. You can (as I’m sure you’ve found) find a lot of aeronautical industry talking about how they fundamentally are unlikely to be able to fill any niche for some of the reasons you mention and some technical details which I really struggle to understand. Obviously industry spokespeople who are heavily invested in jet engines are unlikely to give a balanced picture…

I’m skeptical about wood burning vehicles to be honest. I think its more likely we will see (electric) micro mobility plus public transport. There could still be a niche for it but I suspect we would struggle to dedicate much land for wood production for this purpose given all the other demands we have.

I particularly like your focus on industry which often gets shuffled into a difficult-to-handle category and sort of forgotten. I wonder how much concrete demand we can avoid altogether.

Have you heard of solar.lowtechmagazine.com or its companion notechmagazine.com. They are full of this sort of thinking. Also there’s http://www.oldandinteresting.com/default.aspx lots of examples that might inspire!

Lots of discussion on the technology and the pros and cons and likely implications which is super interesting but also think it should be noted how cool taking a concept like this and making some art out of it.

Really nice way of showing other worlds are possible using a technology thread that got closed by the take off of fossil fuels. I think a lot of the future solutions will look like this.

Kudos!

I do understand the sentiment but I would urge that we need all the voices of discontent towards the current system to be united if we even stand a chance at the change we need on the timelines necessary.

I agree that solidarity and good faith dialogue needs to be two way and it can be difficult at times but we must keep striving to find a way of working with those voices.

Also, should go without saying but you shouldn’t judge a person by their fans (or really a subset of them). Lots in Marx has relevance and resonance to the problems we face. Solarpunk without class analysis will be subverted into techno-captialists vision for the future.

Worth mentioning that we need to be aware the degrowth in a degrowth scenario is a global average. Working classes could see growth (in living standards) whilst the whole economy shrunk.

On a lot issues people consistently say the they want the sort of changes (energy) degrowth would provide. We shouldn’t get lost in the current systems deliberate blurring of economic value and living standards.

See for example this work here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4

This is frustrating because its a strawman. A degrowth scenario could still have growth in some areas (and I would expect it to if it was part of a realignment on more equitable and sustainable principles) and the whole global experience degrowth.

At the core of this is the physical limits of energy sources (and therefore economic activity which is highly coupled and is likely to remain so). There is room for disagreement here but its down to whether or not one believes that tech will save us by providing a different high energy source in time (or a sufficient combination of energy sources and efficiency and decoupling options). On the timescales of Climate Change I’d say that’s highly unlikely and a period of degrowth will be necessary and the precautionary principle suggest we should work to this in case the tech options don’t work.