Discussions toward radically sustainable computing
--------------------------------------------------
Approaching three years ago now, toward the end of 2017, my still
young phlog went through a period of still unrepeated thematic
coherence when I spilled a whole lot of bytes on the topic of
radically simplifying one's life, and selectively purging it of a
lot of modern technology, in service of multiple goals but chiefly
reducing environmental impact and increasing available leisure time.
All of this was written shortly after my move to Finland, at a
time which I perceived the be the possible start of a new chapter
in my life.  I thought hard about this stuff and had plans to make
concrete changes to slowly but surely push my life in a particular
direction.  Representative posts are:

[1] Lithium blues (2017-10-10)
[2] More battery thoughts (2017-10-11)
[3] Asceticism, or something like it (2017-10-19)
[4] Technoskepticism, or something like it (2017-10-22)
[5] Radical frugality, or something like it (2017-10-24)
[6] Frugal entertainment (2017-10-26)
[7] Hobbyist electronics without hypocrisy (2017-10-31)

Shock, horror, I never wrote about any of this stuff again with
anything like the same amount of energy, frequency or consistent
focus, and while it's not true that I completely stopped making
the kinds of efforts I wanted to make, it's fair to say that I fell
pretty short.  In particular, instead of carefully "reforming" my
electronics hobby, I more or less entirely dropped it, partially
as a consequence of increased cost and difficulty of acquiring
supplies in my new location, but more so, I think, as a result of
getting distracted by an unexpected but intense love of outdoor
cycling and accompanying bike tinkering, and also by the whole
Circumlunar Space thing taking off.

Fast forward to the present and I have recently started having
increasingly frequent, engaging and rewarding discussions with
people in the Fediverse on the "sustainable computing" chestnut,
which has brought me back around to this old train of thought.
I am getting somewhat fired up on the subject again and I think
I want to resume seriously thinking and writing and maybe even
gosh-darned *doing* something about it on a semi-regular basis.
Since I first wrote a lot on this matter I suspect that:

* I've gained some new readers, especially from Geminispace, who
 never read what I previously wrote
* Some of my old readers have forgotten a lot of what I previously
 wrote
* I myself forgotten a lot of what I previously wrote
* My ideas have changed a bit in some respects

Thus, I am kicking things off with a characteristically verbose
wall of text more or less "setting the stage", outlining my current
thoughts and beliefs in this sphere and setting a rough direction for
where I want to take the conversation, which I hope is something that
people will find interesting and want to participate in themselves.
Compared to many people interested/active in this sphere, I suspect
a lot of my opinions and motivations will be perceived as extreme,
if not quite radical, and I don't expect everybody to agree with
everything.  I am not dogmatically convinced of anything I'm about
to write, I am open to hearing alternative points of view and I
might even change my mind on some things, but what follows is where
I'm starting at right now and where I think the discussion should
go from there.  Let's begin!

I am fairly concerned in my day to day life - certainly not as deeply
as some people but more, I believe, than average - with issues of
sustainability.  This is despite the fact that I am actually pretty
pessimistic about the whole prospect.  I am not a dyed-in-the-wool
"Doomer", and I'm not actively prepping for the imminent collapse
of civilisation.  I would not even go so far as to say that I am
convinced a collapse *is* coming.  But I consider it a very real
possibility, and I think anybody who dismisses it out of hand has
certainly misplaced their confidence.  Even if collapse may still
be in-principle avoidable at this point in time, I am not remotely
optimistic about the prospect of humanity successfully executing
whatever evasive manoeuvres may be required.

Never the less, I do try fairly hard to reduce my environmental
footprint in whatever ways I can, and this is an ongoing journey that
I'm pretty committed to.  I'm committed to this even though I'm aware
my individual efforts are a proverbial drop in the bucket, because
I simply don't seem to have it in me to do otherwise.  I am not one
to fiddle while Rome burns.  Even if it won't make a difference,
even we are all doomed, I find it very hard not to "do the right
thing" once I have formed some idea of what I think that is.

I also make the effort to actually exercise good environmental
practices myself when I can because I'm on the whole very big
on direct, bottom-up individual action being the best way to fix
things rather than top-down salvation from governments or charities
or companies or anything else like that.  There is a prevalent
narrative online these days that "ordinary people" bear no moral
responsibility for climate change or other impending environmental
catastrophes, that "our leaders" have let us down with inaction
and that "the corporations" are really to blame.  I reject this
narrative entirely: it is a cop-out.  This is not to say that
politicians and corporations are blameless, they surely aren't.
But corporations aren't destroying the planet for fun out of
the evilness of their hearts, they are doing it incidentally as a
side-effect of supplying goods and services that, for the most part,
"ordinary people" willingly consume and which enable a lifestyle
they would actively resist giving up, and politicians don't have
a magic wand they could wave to make that lifestyle sustainable.
The problem is just not that easy.  Real, dramatic change in the
way each and every one of us lives is a non-negotiable requirement
for actual long-term sustainability.

Not only is individual action thus a moral imperative, I also believe
it often has lower barriers and is more secure against later reversal
than political action.  Not only do no new laws need to be passed,
overcoming overwhelming opposition from entrenched commercial
interests, in order for me or you to reduce or eliminate our meat
consumption, and hence substantially reduce our carbon footprint,
but in most parts of the world it's unthinkable that a law *could*
be passed, even by the most corrupt and delusional government,
that could actually stop us from doing it.  No government is going
to *force* you to eat meat.  This is just one positive change
of many which can be made immediately and permanently as soon as
you have the conviction to make it, with no dependence on outside
authority, which is inevitably susceptible to abuse, corruption,
its own collapse, etc.  How is that not the best way to address any
problem?  When so few of us - myself, let me be clear, included! -
have managed to adopt these changes, after the situation has been
well publicised for decades, how can we blame higher ups for letting
us down?  How can we still genuinely expect that the higher ups will
actually suddenly start doing something in the future?  We can, and
must, start solving the problem ourselves using the unassailable
powers we each have, by aggressively opting out of as many of the
drivers of destruction as we can, as soon as we can.

I think it is delusional, or at the very least unduly optimistic,
to think that anything even slightly resembling a modern Western
lifestyle can be made sustainable for the entire current, or
near-future projected, global population simply by switching out
all the familiar parts with new, greener versions - replacing all
the petrol cars with electric cars, replacing the coal power plants
with solar or wind ones, etc, etc.  It's not that those things don't
help at all, and I'm not saying we should actively resist them, but a
lot of their impact will be negated by the Jevons paradox[8], and
besides that this is simply far too minor a change, a failure to
recognise the full scope of the problem.  To some extent, climate
change and the issue of carbon-neutral generation of electricity have
"stolen the stage" of sustainability issues in the public
consciousness, and are stopping us from confronting the broader
implications of finite resources.  Peak oil is only the beginning!
Every aspect of our modern life has non-renewable resources
underlying it that will *eventually* run out if they are consumed
without limit.  Peak lithium will be a thing one day.  Even peak
copper and peak steel will be things.  We can't *make* any of this
stuff, we can only refine and use stuff we dig out of the ground
which which has been there since the planet was formed.  Some of it
can be recycled and reused (with an energy cost, of course), but the
total amount in circulation is fundamentally capped and no plausible
technological innovation in the near future can possibly change this.
Even if you can convince yourself that all these peaks are millennia
into the future (which is still not the same thing as never, of
course), the issue remains that acquiring these resources and
rendering them useful is unavoidably destructive.  Even if all your
mining equipment and refineries are happily solar powered, we are
still talking about cutting down forests and digging holes in
mountains to get raw materials, and refining them via chemical
reactions that produce nasty byproducts.  When you admit that just
about everything is inherently and inescapably finite, and that even
the most careful use of those finite resources involves non-trivial
environmental damage, simple intellectual honesty immediately
leads to the conclusion that genuine, long-term sustainability
requires using as little of just about everything as possible,
and being extremely careful about what you do use.  Never ending
improvements in convenience and material comfort are strictly
incompatible with this.  Most mainstream ideas of sustainability
take little more than few small steps in this direction.

So, my vision of sustainable society looks an awful lot closer to
pre-industrial society than it does to modern society.  I don't
see any need to go quite to the extremes of anarcho-primitivism.
I think there are technologies which are sustainable - or sustainable
*enough* - relative to the amount good they do - that they are
worth preserving.  But a lot of it will simply have to go, and I
think we really ought to begin moving in this direction hard and
fast, undergoing rapid "degrowth".  Large governments and large
corporations are not ever going to champion this idea themselves,
but that's okay because they don't need to: we can do it, or at
least most of it, ourselves.  I certainly don't *enjoy* every part
of this prospect, and I don't think I have a romanticised vision of
"life in the good old days".  Some of it will be unpleasant, no
question, but given the choice between "unpleasant" and "systemic
ecosystem collapse" I don't think the choice is difficult.  We simply
have to roll a lot of "progress" back.  But it's very important to
avoid thinking in terms of a literal return to exactly the way life
was at any point in time during our recent past.  Returning to any
historical level of resource consumption from the present will be
extremely different from the first time around.  I wrote a little
about this previously, using the language of a "mixed timeline".
This time, the amusing tagline of "pre-modern life with modern
characteristics" springs to mind as an alternative.  There are two
sides to this: intellectual and material.

Intellectually, there is no reason that actively moving away from the
energy and resource consumption of global, industrialised capitalism
means we need to give up any of the scientific knowledge we gained
under it, or reverse any of the shifts in social attitudes which
happened at the same time as (perhaps facilitated by, perhaps not)
its reign.  One of the reasons life sucked "in the good old days"
was not having the germ theory of disease.  Well, we have that now!
And we don't necessarily need to lose it if we start living a more
materially "primitive" lifestyle.  Nor would we need to forget
everything we have learned about health and medicine in general,
or agriculture, or nutrition.  A concerted effort to "live the
old ways, but smarter" could produce very different results to the
first time around.  Nor would we need to give up the commitment to
gender equality, anti-racism, or any other such social progress.
We could "live the old ways, but fairer".

Materially, though, is where things really get interesting, at least
for me.  I believe a sustainable future necessarily involves far,
far fewer and far, far smaller mines, refineries and factories than
the present day, but even if we started shutting and/or scaling down
those things today, that doesn't mean that all the things we have
manufactured to date would suddenly and spontaneously disappear.
You know how Cuba is full of classic 50s and 60s American cars
imported from before the Cold War embargoes, and maintained ever
since by increasingly creative and resourceful mechanics who keep
them running with a hodge-podge of available parts?  That's the first
century or so of a genuinely sustainable future: using, repairing
and adapting pre-existing artifacts from "the before times" which
we no longer allow ourselves to manufacture new instances of, for
as long as we can, getting the most and least destructive use out
of them we can, while we gradually wean ourselves off our old ways.

This realisation opens up *so many* fascinating questions: of all
the high-tech stuff we are mass producing today, which can only
be produced by wreaking terrible damage on the ecosphere, which
things would remain useful if all the trappings of modern industrial
society disappeared, and which would immediately become useless?
Of the stuff that would become useless, can we think of clever ways
to repurpose it, or reuse its parts?  Of the stuff that remains
useful, what will fail fastest, and what are the prospects for
repairing it using scavenged parts and tools?  What would be the
most useful spare parts to stockpile now while we can?  Can we
make modifications to stave off the most common failure modes?
Of the stuff that we think we might actually have a hope of keeping
running for a long time, what are its most important applications
in a genuinely sustainable world?

If you want to be optimistic and assume that we can afford to put
a slow and gradual end to rampant industrialism, and that we as
a species can get our shit together enough to actually *do* that
in a controlled way, then the answers to these questions would
be invaluable for guiding our decisions on how to make use of
the final few decades of destructive manufacturing.  If we're not
going to stop churning stuff out immediately, we need to at least
immediately start optimising the designs of everything we *do* make
for repairability and adaptability, and to start manufacturing and
stockpiling replacement parts.  So, both pessimists and optimists
alike have motivations to think about this stuff, which I hope
means my ponderings on these matters will be of broad interest.

Finally, we arrive at computing, or perhaps consumer electronics a
little more broadly.  This is nothing more than a special case of
"high-tech stuff" as discussed above and everything said there
applies here.  I fully grant that it might seem like a strange
special case to dedicate attention to - when all is said and done,
if we're talking about stripping modern industry back to the
bare minimum necessary to provide for happy, healthy livelihoods,
computers just don't really seem to make the cut, even if we're
being generous.  Computers were not essential to developing
antibiotics or vaccination or blood transfusion or a whole bunch
of other technological breakthroughs that drastically improved
people's lives.  Within living memory, millions of people lead daily
lives not touched by computing in any way, and while those lives
may not have been perfect, it would be hard to argue that a lack of
computation was the main contributing factor to that imperfection.
If we were talking about designing a long-term sustainable lifestyle
to be implemented from scratch, it seems to go without saying that
computers simply wouldn't figure into it.

But, of course, that's not what we're talking about.  We are talking
about the possibility of maybe just barely being able to rapidly
transition to a long-term sustainable lifestyle starting from
the world we're in right now, and that world is absolutely lousy
with computers.  Even if we shut down all the semiconductor fabs
tomorrow, those computers wouldn't go anywhere.  The overwhelming
majority of the environmental damage each of those computers
represents is already done, by virtue of their having been made.
The ongoing energy requirements to keep them running are indeed
very, very small, especially the modern single board ARM machines,
and absolutely within the reach of what a radically decentralised,
off-grid, sustainable eco-village could generate itself using
scavenged technology.  Having some kind of minimal computing
infrastructure in place during the transition from the present to
a sustainable future would surely be useful.  I can't shake the
feeling they could play a very important role in that whole "not
forgetting all the very important technical/practical know-how we
accumulated before we got ourselves under control" thing.

Above and beyond the issue of non-stop destructive manufacturing of
electronic devices with ever shorter useful lifespans is the matter
of the environmental footprint of the modern internet infrastructure.
It's very hard to imagine that high speed, low-latency, 24/7
connectivity between just about any two points on the Earth's
surface can be made sustainable.  The question of how we move
away from that vision of the internet is no less fascinating than
how we get the most and best use out of existing hardware once we
know nothing newer will ever come along.  Within a community of
sufficient population density, existing hardware and software is
already perfectly capable of implementing WiFi and/or Bluetooth mesh
networks with zero dependency on any infrastructure external to the
computer themselves - no cables, no cell towers or antenna masts,
no satellites, no datacentres, nothing - so networking need not
disappear entirely.  But communication *between* such communities,
across expanses of insufficient population density for meshes, is
another question entirely.  I believe it will be possible, but also
that it will of necessity be very slow, very unreliable, and very
intermittently available, by the standards of the modern internet
(which, of course, can still mean mindblowingly fast and reliable by
historical standards, like people carrying written messages around
on horseback or in boats).  When low latency is required, ideas from
amateur radio (particularly packet radio and ultra low power "QRP"
operation) will probably be highly influential.  When latency is not
important we'll resort to "sneakernet" methods.  The old joke says
"never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway".  There will be no functioning station
wagons in a sustainable future, but thanks to dramatic advances
in storage technology, a backpack full of 1TB or larger USB hard
drives is small and light enough to be carried long distances by a
cyclist, providing bandwidth that's certainly not to be sniffed at,
especially when its use is limited to *important* information, stored
in the most efficient way possible.  How, and for what purposes,
can we best make use of an "internet" with these properties?

Even if you think I'm, frankly, batshit insane with all this
ecological collapse and radical deindustrialisation talk (I don't
deny it's possible!), I hope you'll still agree that we - where "we"
refers to society in general, but in particular to us, "the computer
people", who have made these wonderful things central parts of our
livelihoods, education, recreation and socialisation  - are kind
of overdue for frank and open discussion about the environmental
impact of computing and the internet, especially as the market shifts
ever further away from a model of people owning a small number of
comparatively large, repairable, upgradable devices used for many
years toward one of people amassing veritable fleets of smaller,
mobile or even wearable devices not designed with longevity or
generality in mind.  And, of course, especially as the Internet of
Things rears its ugly, ridiculous head and promises a future life
where everybody's house has dozens of even hundreds of plainly
unnecessary tiny computers in it, each one containing rare Earth
metals, many of them containing lithium batteries.  Even if you
don't think we need to go to the same extremes I'll be talking
about in future posts, you'd have to be deeply in denial not to
agree that *something* needs to change.  Once again, I think both
the optimistic and pessimistic versions of this discussion will
have overlap that I hope even people who *do* think I'm nuts still
think I'm at least worth listening to some of the time.

I think that, at last, is pretty much where I currently stand on
these matters and the direction in which I am thinking of heading.
I absolutely didn't arrive at this position on the strength of my
own thought.  I have taken information and inspiration from many
sources and people.  A woefully incomplete list of these follows.

The issue of embodied energy in computing hardware, and the energy
consumption of the internet infrastructure, both came to my attention
first through two articles in Low-Tech Magazine[9,10].

xj9 of sunshinegardens.org wrote a post[11] (originally on the
web but which I am so happy to say is now also on Gemini) about the
monstrous energy consumption of internet infrastructure, and the
notion of lower power, lower tech decentralised alternatives based
on meshnets and sneakernets.  It is written less from a perspective
of environmentalism and more one of driving internet cost down to the
point that it's effectively free in order to make it more accessible,
but the same ideas serve both goals to a large extent.  In general,
xj9 has done a lot to inspire and motivate me, even though I think
she's more optimistic and less primitivist than I am on the whole,
mostly because she endorses the "Walkaway" philosophy (inspired by
Cory Doctorow's novel of the same name - which I enjoyed but question
the real world validity of) of individual actors opting out of the
worst parts of modern society, which I think is a hugely undervalued
technique, and also because she is big on salvaged electronics.

Devine Lu Linvega (@[email protected]) and partner Rekka
(@[email protected]) live and work (as developers, artists and
authors) onboard a sail boat, which has given them great real world
experience and insight on the realities of low power computing and
intermittent network connectivity.  Over years they have migrated
away from workflows based on power-hungry, update-dependent
Macbooks[12] to using multiple single-purpose Raspberry Pis[13]
wherever possible, and writing many of their own minimalist software
tools for their work.  However, in a wonderful article on
"Longtermism"[14], Devine acknowledges that "pushing for the purchase
and production" of more "small low-power open-source single-purpose
boards" is not without problems, and wonders if "creating software
targeting old hardware might be what I'm looking for", which again
aligns a lot with the salvaged electronics approach which I think has
to be the fundamental basis of genuine sustainability.

Thanks for reading this far, if anybody did!  I'm looking forward
to having a lot of interesting and challenging discussions on these
issues with various people in the Fedi-, Gemini- and Gopherverses
in the future.  Shufei (whom I've had some Fediverse and XMPP chats
with about this) has already made a gemlog post on the matter, and I
know there are other folks planning to chime in, too.  I can't wait!

[1] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/lithium-blues.txt
[2] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/more-battery-thoughts.txt
[3] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/asceticism-or-something-like-it.txt
[4] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/technoskepticism-or-something-like-it.txt
[5] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/radical-frugality-or-something-like-it.txt
[6] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/frugal-entertainment.txt
[7] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~solderpunk/phlog/hobbyist-electronics-without-hypocrisy.txt
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
[9] https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/embodied-energy-of-digital-technology.html
[10] https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/can-the-internet-run-on-renewable-energy.html
[11] gemini://sunshinegardens.org/~xj9/posts/2020-universal-basic-internet.gmi
[12] https://100r.co/site/tools_ecosystem.html
[13] htps://100r.co/site/raspberry_pi.html
[14] https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/longtermism.html
[14] gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/users/shufei/phlog/20200712-Comp-Solarpunk.gmi

You are viewing proxied material from zaibatsu.circumlunar.space. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.