ef on appropriate tech
__________
via nika dubrovsky tweet [https://twitter.com/nikadubrovsky/status/1679233172238680065?s=20]:
“Should We Switch To Small Technology?” https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/should-we-switch-to-small-technology-cambridge-forum/
notes/quotes from article:
This audio recording features the Cambridge Forum program, “Should We Switch to Small Technology?” which was held at the First Parish in Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1977.
Our first speaker is Robert Swann, Director of the International Independence Institute here in Cambridge. He’s directed that for the past 10 years. He is a native of Ohio, and went to Ohio State University. Before he and Ralph Borsodi formed the Institute, he was a builder and designer in Ohio and Michigan
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Swann_(land_trust_pioneer)]:
Robert Swann (March 26, 1918 – January 13, 2003) was a community land trust pioneer, Georgist, and peace activist in the United States. . According to his obituary, “Swann dedicated more than a half century of his life to non-violence, desegregation, appropriate technology, affordable housing, land trusts, community credit, worker cooperatives and local currency”.
ie: ai as nonjudgmental expo labeling
Swann was a conscientious objector during World War II and was imprisoned. In 1967, Swann signed a public statement declaring his intention to refuse to pay income taxes in protest against the U.S. war against Vietnam.
In the late 1960s, Ralph Borsodi and Swann established the International Independence Institute, which became the Institute for Community Economics (ICE) in the 1970s. Swann discovered the ideas of E.F. Schumacher and became the champion of Schumacher’s 1974 U.S. book tour for Small Is Beautiful. In 1980 Swann and Susan Witt, a staff member at ICE and Swann’s partner, were asked to move from their offices in Cambridge and establish a regional community land trust in the Berkshires. With interested members of the Berkshire region they incorporated the Community Land Trust in the Southern Berkshires. At the same time in 1980, Swann and Witt were asked by The Schumacher Society in the UK to start an American counterpart. The programs of the E. F. Schumacher Society continue at the Schumacher Center for New Economics.
e f schumacher – small is beautiful et al
back to article:
The present primary activity of the I.I.I. or international independence Institute, is the development of Community Land Trusts— community-held land. It is a privately-funded organization dedicated to the revitalization and economic development of rural areas. In addition to developing credit and land reform programs in the United States, Mexico, Indonesia and Ireland, the institute arranged for the first American speaking tour of E.F. Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered.
Swann: Thank you, Reverend Vetter. Let us begin by asking, what do we mean by ‘small technology’? Generally today, those of us who advocated a change in focus on technology would use a slightly different name. Schumacher himself has coined the term intermediate technology, but I think most popular today probably use the term appropriate technology. And I think we’re talking about the same thing when we talk about small technology. Other names would include soft technology, radical technology, and so on.
While all of these names may imply, and in fact, often do have a slightly different meaning, I believe that the four characteristics which Schumacher generally uses to describe such technology would generally be agreed on by the various advocates, even though they would apply slightly different adjectives.
These characteristics are, *number one, the relative simplicity of a technology..t or a tool — a tool which can be understood and used by the average person, it does not require a great deal of **training or sophistication to do so. For instance, I would say most carpenters’ tools would fall into this category. They’re also an obviously an ancient technology, even though they have been improved from time to time; in many ways, there isn’t a tremendous change in the and tools that a carpenter would normally use. By the same token, a technology should be simple to maintain, easy to maintain— it wouldn’t require an expert to come from some distant place to keep it working. Whatever the working parts are, would be capable to be rather easily-repaired locally.
*mechanism simple enough et al.. a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.
It would also be a *labor intensive technology, rather than a capital intensive technology. By contrast to most of our industrialized technologies, which tend to be heavily capital intensive, Schumacher would put the emphasis on labor-intensive technology. Obviously, this is of supreme importance—of greatest importance—in the developing countries.
not sure if he’s meaning this.. but my mind goes straight to red flag ness of takes a lot of work ness..
It would also be constructed from local materials if at all possible; rather than bringing materials from the distant places to make the tool or the technology. It would be something which could be made relatively locally. Therefore, the emphasis again on greater self reliance.
It would also be, the final characteristic, Schumacher calls *non-violent, or non destructive to the environment. It would not be a tool or technology which tends to destroy at the same time.
*gershenfeld something else law et al
These characteristics, however, are not meant to be absolute, but rather to be the direction towards which such a technology should strive, and are meant to contrast with the general assumption that bigger is always better. But not to assume, necessarily, that smaller is always better. *In fact, Schumacher said one time that, if everybody was advocating small technology, he would advocate larger technology.. t
*need – infinitesimal structures approaching the limit of structureless\ness and/or vice versa .. aka: ginorm/small ness
ie: ai as nonjudgmental expo labeling
The concept was intended by Schumacher, initially, to reply to the problems of the developing countries, where clearly large-scale technology is most inappropriate.
Again, *we have to move in incremental steps. We cannot all give up the motor car and take the public transportation, motorcycles or bicycles— you can’t do this overnight at any rate, but we can begin to take those steps.
*not today.. today we have means for global detox/re\set/leap.. and we’re missing it
humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
for (blank)’s sake
OPEC is of course, a beginning in this changing attitude on the part of the rest of the world. The question then becomes: will we in the industrialized nations have learned fast enough to simplify our technologies, our lifestyles and our demands on world resources that we can survive in harmony with the rest of the world from this point on? That’s the challenge as I see it.
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs
imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
___________
__________
we need a problem deep enough to resonate w/8bn today.. a mechanism simple enough to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough to set/keep 8bn legit free
ie: org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w/8bn today.. via a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough (aka: sans any form of m\a\p) to set/keep 8bn legit free
___________
___________
___________
- ai (up to date list on this page)
___________
__________
be you. 