Back • Return Home
Creating A New Internet
[Some of this is based on several posts written for The Web-Raft and 32-Bit Cafe forums. Many thanks to those who engaged me in coversation, as well as those who shared a few of these links there (i.e.: blog47177 and starbreaker) or on their respective websites (i.e.: iwillneverbehappy).]
Contents
• Phase I: Creation of Computers on the Local Level
• Phase II: Creation of Computer Networks on the Local Level
• Phase III: Creation of Resilient Microgrids
• Phase IV: Learning and Communicating To Survive
Phase I: Creation of Computers on the Local Level
General Premise
Humanity needs to completely transform the manufacturing process of computers all over the world (into a "circular economy" by following the principles of "permacomputing") until everything is environmentally-friendly, ethically made, built to last, and free for everyone. One way of transitioning towards this is by repairing, recycling, and creating computers on the local-level through sustainable makerspaces / repair cafes.
Brief Assessment of Problems
Speaking generally, there are many issues when it comes to the manufacture of electronics. To give a brief gloss of a few of them:
1. Ecological Impacts
There are a huge number of pollutants associated with “e-waste” (i.e.: the electronic devices that end up in landfills). These include plastics, heavy metals (like mercury and lead), and so on. They destroy the environment and harm the wildlife within it in various ways. The recycling programs for handling it are often a joke as well.
2. Human Rights Abuses
Not only are many of the materials used to make electronics toxic to humans, but nearly every aspect of their manufacture is filled with abuse of some kind (e.g.: unsafe working conditions, child labor, overwork, etc.). That includes everything from the mines that supply the raw materials to the assembly lines within the factories.
3. Privacy Concerns
With the prevalence of things like "smartphones", "smart" home devices, and the idea of "smart cities" being rolled out as a "solution" to the problems of urbanization, nearly everything is being connected together into a giant digital "panopticon", where a relatively small group of people can monitor the activities of the many. Those conditions are often encouraged by "data brokers", businesses that gather personal information and sell it, and government organizations that do "mass surveillance". They usually feed back into one another, and together, they form a giant "military-industrial complex" focused almost entirely upon commerce and control.
All of those same issues carry over into more specific hardware components to some extent. For example:
• Some computer processors have "backdoors" built right into them (e.g.: The Intel Management Engine and The AMD Platform Security Processor).
It is hard to find out about the existence of such things because the design of most computer processors, as well as the majority of instruction sets that control them, are "proprietary". One of the only exceptions is RISC V, which is an "open standard" for public use. Generally, we need more hardware projects like the MNT Reform Laptop and Andrew Huang's Precursor, which can be completely taken apart and inspected by the individual using it.
A lot of software is vulnerable in a similar manner, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example:
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has developed a lot of "spyware" (i.e.: software that is intended to secretly monitor what someone does on their computer, as opposed to "telemetry" that is done openly and voluntarily). The public has only been made aware of some of it years after it was used (such as "Carnivore" in 1997, "Magic Lantern" in 2001, "CIPAV" in 2007, etc.).
Since we cannot look at the "code", or program instructions that make up many pieces of software, it can be difficult to verify what exactly it is doing in the background. Ideally, all software would follow the "free software" philosophy (and use licenses like the GNU GPL). People should understand their software rather than be controlled by it.
What can we do? While standards for "open architecture" and "free software" are important, they are not enough all by themselves. But if we can simplify the production and programming of computers to the point where anyone can do it, then it becomes easier to make it both transparent and sustainable. It can also help put computers and other technologies into the hands of people who might not have access to them otherwise.
Brainstorming The "How"
It is simple to share educational information on how to program. Showing how to make modern computer chips step-by-step is a lot more involved though. It is a very complex process that requires sophisticated techniques based upon in-depth Physics and Chemistry knowledge. It also uses a lot of (incredibly expensive!) specialized equipment.
Further, thanks to "miniaturization" (i.e.: the push towards ever smaller components), deciphering how pre-existing items work by "reverse engineering" them can only be done with some of the oldest of computer processors.
Despite those obstacles, it seems possible to create "retro"-like computers on the local level by "leapfrogging" off of the historical developments that lead to computer chips in the first place and the incredible efforts made throughout the world to try to duplicate them. What references do we need to replicate the essentials on a smaller scale?
The work of Sam Zeloof and Jeri Ellsworth demonstrate how computer chips can be made in a (relatively) small lab or at home. And James Sharman's 8-bit computer is a wonderful example of how just about everything else that makes up a computer can also be built from the ground up.
Finding new strategies for digital preservation is important. This includes making a record of old computer parts (e.g.: databases like The Retro Web, WikiChip, CPU DB, CPU World, etc.). These designs can be reused or adapted, and much can be learned by looking at trends in their development over the years.
We can rebuild some of the vintage technology that is starting to degrade as well. Ideally, a computer would be like a cast-iron skillet, something that we would invest in once and then repeatedly hand down through our family line because it is sturdy, durable, reliable, useful, flexible. We can undo "planned obsolescence" by increasing those constructive qualities as we rebuild that older technology (e.g.: by making it "modularly upgradable" instead of stuck within a single design, built to easily take apart and repair).
Computers with slower speeds are still good for many applications, so long as we simultaneously get rid of all of the "bloat" within the software. To quote Ville-Matias Heikkila's article The Resource Leak Bug of Our Civilization:
What happens if you give this buggy civilization a virtual world where the abundance of resources grows exponentially, as in Moore's law? Exactly: it adopts the extropian attitude, aggressively harnessing as much resources as it can. Since the computing world is virtually limitless, it can serve as an interesting laboratory example where the growth-for-its-own-sake ideology takes a rather pure and extreme form. Nearly every methodology, language and tool used in the virtual world focuses on cumulative growth while neglecting many other aspects.
In other words, every time that computers have gotten faster, a lot of software has expanded to use up as much of those resources as possible. Is that "old tech" really "obsolete"? Again, if we are going to scale down hardware, we also have to simplify the software running on it. The "demoscene" community is particularly skilled at squeezing incredible performance out of "slow" computers, and "homebrew" programmers continue to make software for them.
Another inspiring example is the work of Devine Lu Linvega and Rekka Bellum. One can learn a lot by exploring a summary of their projects, and by diving into their philosophy about hardware and software. What can we do with this type of approach? Software projects like CollapseOS can help us to build useful technology when "supply chains" start collapsing, or if we are located within a place where they are non-existent to begin with.
Technological Leaps By Individuals and Small Groups
Imagine community-operated spaces where we can create simple "single-board computers" (SBCs) from scratch, and then learn how to program them to do some sort of useful task, like running agricultural equipment to sustainably produce our own food? If we work together, these sorts of spaces are within our grasp! Our resources may be limited, but our resourcefulness is not. How can things be regenerated?
It is possible to make an entire machine shop out of scrap aluminum. Can a similar approach be used to make devices like "3D printers" and "CNC machines"? We could then use these to create the "printed circuit boards" (PCBs) necessary for other electronic devices, and to form the plastic cases that protect them with filament derived from recycled bottles.
Once we have a good foundation, we could then research how to make all of it more efficient and ecologically responsible. People become discouraged from practicing "amateur science" or "invention" when they compare their own resources to a laboratory run by a giant corporation or government, but I think significant technological breakthroughs could be made without a huge budget. For example:
• It is possible to do more with less. The field of "chaos computing" attempts to do exactly this, making computer processors that are more efficient with fewer parts by designing them to reconfigure themselves based on the type of task that they are doing.
• "Biomimicry", as the name implies, is to mimic the patterns and processes used within Nature to make things more efficient. The field of "neuromorphic computing" attempts to create designs based on the structure of the brain. Organisms are filled with these types of relationships!
• In some instances, we could even get the design to make itself through "evolutionary algorithms". The field of "evolvable hardware" attempts to do this, and The Open Source Evolvable Hardware Project has continued the work of Adrian Thompson that helped to initiate this field.
• We can also search for alternative methods and materials. The parts that make up a computer processor, such as "transistors" and "logic gates", can be formed out of biochemicals. This is done within the field of "DNA computing".
"Genetic engineering" is becoming available to the home experimenter. There are even student competitions in "synthetic biology"!..Imagine "growing" your own biocomputer at home? If that is something that interests you, then you might just be a "biopunk"!
These things can only constructively benefit society when they are developed and applied responsibly by every individual out in the open, rather than being hidden away within government and corporate research laboratories for the purposes of commerce and control.
But it is not enough that we have freedom in how computer software and hardware is created; we also have to consider how all of these devices communicate with one another. Individual rights are balanced by collective responsibilities, and people who are self-empowered can be linked together in mutual aid. How would you use computer networks to accomplish this?
Phase II: Creation of Computer Networks on the Local Level
Marginalization Through Limited Access
To quote an article on Masterclass:
Marginalization, also referred to as social exclusion, occurs when certain groups of people get denied access to areas of society. Many factors can lead to this denial of access to institutions and opportunities, including historical bias and lack of funding.
Marginalized people don't necessarily belong to one particular demographic: Marginalization occurs due to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, socioeconomic level, and age. Marginalized groups are often at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining health care, decent education, and employment that would improve their well-being.
We can use the techniques within the previous phase to rebuild computers to share with those who don't have them and create new computers to serve specific needs, like education. Once someone has a computer that is understandable, then they can easily learn how to program it. The problem is deeper than simply access to hardware and software though. How do we share information through them?
About 60% of the world's total population has access to The Internet. Many areas, particularly those suffering from high levels of poverty, are excluded from it. The situation is sometimes referred to as "The Digital Divide", a term first popularized by the Falling Through The Net: Toward Digital Inclusion report released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the years 1999-2000.
Building Community Networks
Some organizations are still attempting to fix that situation by helping groups of people to build and maintain their local infrastructure. We might refer to these as "community networks". Here are some practical how-to guides for making them:
• NYC Mesh
• Detroit Community Technology Project (DCTP)
• Wireless Networking in the Developing World
• The Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3)
• Internet Society
• Alternative Networks as part of The Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA) Research Group
• Community Nets by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR)
There is actually a rich history behind the concept of the community network, to the point where books have been written about the subject, like Douglas Schuler's New Community Networks: Wired for Change. Similar to how the beginning of home computers has its roots in the "hacker"/"phreaker" counterculture of the 1960s, community networks have always been linked to sharing knowledge, increasing civic intelligence, and the practice of direct democracy.
Building A "Second Internet" For All
The Internet is a global network of computer networks. It is sometimes forgotten that there is also a physical infrastructure underlying all of it, the so-called "backbone". Access to it is limited by whether or not a person can pay an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to connect their computer to that network.
A "mesh" or "fully connected network" is one where every device is connected to every other one in such a way that any two can communicate, even if the link between them is broken. They require software that is flexible enough to allow these devices to communicate with one another under many circumstances. Mesh networks are particularly useful for making things like "disaster-proof Wi-Fi", and getting around the "internet killswitch" of a corrupt government/corporation. It is important to have a resilient communications system in place for whenever disaster strikes. A good example is The Serval Project, which is free software that allows smartphones to continue to communicate with one another when the cellular network is down. In turn, these connections can be extended through high-frequency radio.
Similarly, data can be transferred between computers through "packet radio". The limitation is that it is incredibly slow. However, we can twist light and radio waves to be able to hold more data. Experiments have accomplished up to 2Tb/sec. with light and 32Gb/sec. with radio waves. Therefore, is it possible to create a relatively cheap vortex-shaped antenna, waveguide, or some other way to generate these waves? What would it be like if every packet radio user could become their very own ISP?
By connecting the homemade devices created within the previous phase into "peer-to-peer" (P2P) computer networks, and then removing any limitations on the speed at which they can share information, we form a completely decentralized "pirate Internet". Think "pirate radio", but with data instead of audio.
Phase III: Creation of Resilient Microgrids
Now that we have considered how those electronic devices are manufactured, programmed, and networked together, let us consider how they are powered.
Sources of Energy
For the most part, the way that energy is generated is not sustainable. Fuels like gas and coal run many power plants throughout the world. Various plans have been formulated to try to fix that situation, such as those described within the book Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air by David J.C. MacKay:
[Figure 27.9 from the above book]
Some of these types of plans are viable, while others are not. Generally, the terms "eco-", "green", and similar sounding buzzwords are sometimes used to describe things that are not truly sustainable (i.e.: "greenwashing"). That is especially true when it comes to sources of "clean" or "renewable" energy. For example, there are:
• "hydroelectric plants" (devices for creating water-power)
• "wind farms" filled with "wind turbines" (devices for creating wind-power)
• "photovoltaic cells" (devices for creating solar-power)
...etc.
While these might seem "green" by their very nature, we must be cautious in determining whether or not that is actually the case. For example, dams can be harmful to organisms within rivers and streams, large wind turbines can kill migrating birds by sitting directly within their flight path, and solar panels are often created through energy-intensive processes with toxic chemicals that are difficult to recycle.
Distribution of Energy
Moreover, a highly centralized power grid can is vulnerable, easily disrupted by natural disasters or sabotage.
The key to both problems seems to be a "soft energy" approach. In other words, by helping people to build and maintain their own waterwheels, windmills, biodiesel engines, and other small-scale devices that are appropriate to their environment, they could create energy right where it is needed without excess pollution. While it requires some mechanical knowledge and careful planning, they can become "self-sufficient" to some extent.
This technology is already well-established, simply under utilized at smaller scales. We don't have to go deep into the electrical engineering theory or the mathematical models behind alternative devices here. However, with a little more research, it might also be possible to find ways to reduce solar panel technology into something within the reach of the individual.
The methods chosen are only limited by our given geographic area, our "bioregion". For example, we aren't going to be making waterwheels if we aren't near a source of moving water, nor windmills in a place with very little wind. However, every place has some kind of renewable resource that we can connect to. We emphasize the word "renewable" here because we are attempting to interface with Nature in a way that does not cause harm. We cannot be burning through things faster than they are replenished or creating any toxic pollution. A process that is truly "renewable" and "clean" does not do either of those things. It is a self-sustaining cycle. We have to think about survival in the long-term.
Ideally, we would have more than one way of generating electricity, none of which overlap with one another. So, if one method fails, we would still have access to an uninterrupted source of electricity. At the very least, we could have pedal-powered or hand-cranked kinetic generators as a backup. In addition to a long-term trajectory, we also have to account for many different circumstances.
Within the previous phase, we saw how a "mesh network" is a communications system where every device within it is linked to every other device in such a way that, if a connection fails, then any two can still communicate by routing information through another. Once a community has several individuals that are sustainably generating their own electricity, then those systems can be connected together in a similar manner, into a so-called "microgrid".
An interesting example is the "SolBox", a device that allows several houses to sell the electricity generated by their respective solar panel systems to each other. But of course, the devices that we have in mind would cover many other ways of generating electricity and would not have the "buying and selling" aspect to it. Any excess would simply go to wherever it is needed and/or be stored for later use by everyone. Anyone who has their own energy generation system can connect to the microgrid, and groups could be formed to help people build their own systems. The blueprints for making all of this would be shared freely.
Engineering Considerations
While it isn't necessarily the most fundamental in regards to human survival, electricity usually powers every device behind every process done within a home, whether that be the pumping of water, heating/cooling, lighting, and so on. In that sense, it makes every other process easier. It can also help us to replace devices that would normally require gas with equivalents powered by electricity (e.g.: electric hotplates instead of gas stoves). Whether or not we build computers "from scratch", these are important considerations.
As long as they are diverse enough, these types of "mesh microgrids" would be "resilient" in every sense of the word, and that quality extends to a "second Internet" that is powered by them. To paraphrase the paper, Four Concepts for Resilience and the Implications for the Future Of Resilience Engineering by David D. Woods, the term "resilience" has four distinct meanings:
1. resilience as rebound from trauma and return to equilibrium
2. resilience as a synonym for robustness (i.e.: ability to manage increasing complexity, stressors, and challenges)
3. resilience as the opposite of brittleness (i.e.: as graceful extensibility when surprise challenges boundaries)
4. resilience as network architectures that can sustain the ability to adapt to future surprises as conditions evolve
Maintaining these characteristics becomes more difficult when systems are needlessly "complex". We have to transition out of creating such systems if we want to survive.
Phase IV: Learning and Communicating To Survive
What Will You Share?
Imagine that we already had sustainable computers built locally, powered by renewable energy sources, that were capable of communicating with one another in just about any circumstance and with no limitation on speed whatsoever. With everyone connected in this way, what type of information could be shared to change the world for the better?
We need both the technical skills necessary for survival (e.g.: truly sustainable methods of gardening, first aid, herbalism, making food and household items from scratch, creating and repairing clothing, etc.) and the communication skills necessary to get along. When this is presented through how-to guides that can be implemented in day-to-day life, the barriers to abundance are lowered and the alienation between people can be transformed into camaraderie.
In short, we need an open and extensive record of "hard-won" pieces of scientific research freely available to everyone all over the world, and shared in a way that is readily understandable. We will all need something like this in the event of a worldwide civilization collapse. [That might sound extreme, but it is a real concern when considering human history thus far.]
In my opinion, how the "second Internet" is used is even more important than its overall design. If it becomes antisocial instead of life-affirming, then it really is not any different from the worst qualities of the pre-existing Internet. It can only help society transition towards a more equitable way of living if it helps all people meet their basic needs in constructive ways independently of "money" and "jobs". It must be founded upon voluntary association, mutual respect, and honoring all life.
By practicing self-sufficiency while simultaneously helping others to achieve the same through mutual aid, we can make a society where everyone prospers together. However, we can only attain a balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities when peacemaking is sincere and continuously practiced by everyone in every aspect of life.
Therefore, the things that I feel are most destructive in society are actually the antisocial behaviors taking place within human relationships and the way that organizations are structured in order to replicate them. We will continue to explore those aspects and offer ideas on how to heal from them as we continue.
Thank you for reading!
