Kosmolokalisme: Fra "just in time" til "just at place"

Cosmolocalism: From "Just in time" to "Just at place"

(På Skreia blir det nok hverken kosmolokalisme eller økolandsby, dette er farlige ord som ikke tolereres på Toten. Her fra Kværnumstomta. På dette stedet har vært bedrevet industri siden middelalderen, og Kristian Kvart beskattet de som hadde fallrettighetene i Kværnumsstrykene tilsvarende fem storgårder.)

Hoi, hoi, Kværnumstomta er reddet!

"Herr Fossemøllens mølle"

Trond Andresen skriver godt om menneskenaturen og støtter kaptein Bongard, derfor gledet jeg meg til å se hans presentasjon av teknologi og framtidssamfunnet, men ble skuffet. Her kommer han hverken inn på InnGruppe-Demokratiet (IGD), kosmolokalisme eller Village Towns (fornyede kjøpstader med utgangspunkt i middelalderens byer).

Istedenfor kommer han opp med disse forferdelig stygge, modernistiske Sky Trains. Nei, det teknologiske framtidssamfunnet skal ta plass på brostein bak middelalderens bymurer, hvor murene nå ikke skal beskytte mot inntrengere, men beskytte kulturlandskapet omkring fra urban spredning, som er verre enn kreft.

Så jeg ble nedslått og deler ikke Andresens teknologiske framtidsvisjoner på noe vis. I min søken etter PermaLivs tidligere skriblerier om kosmolokalisme, kom jeg over denne artikkelen, som har en flott overskrift, men ellers ikke var særlig god. Satte derfor inn Andresens video her, med min kommentar til.

Vasilis Kostakis, som i likhet med meg er knyttet opp mot nettverket til P2P-Foundation, har mottatt midler for å forske på kosmolokalisme.

Dr. Kostakis will use the €1.1 million ERC Starting Grant for a four-year research project titled “Cosmolocalism” that will advance understanding of the future of work in the age of automation and beyond.

“We will create an interdisciplinary team consisted of three postdoctoral researchers and at least four PhD students. We will utilize our networks with global changemakers, from governments and top-universities such as Harvard, MIT, and ETH Zurich to prominent NGOs such as the Greenpeace or the P2P Foundation, to create awareness of new forms of production that may be more free, fair, and sustainable,” says Kostakis.

“Similarly how a free and open encyclopedia Wikipedia has displaced the Encyclopedia Britannica, the emergence of networked micro-factories are giving rise to new open-source forms of production in the realm of design and manufacturing, ” he says, adding that such spaces can either be makerspaces or other co-working spaces, equipped with local manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing and CNC machines or traditional low-tech tools and crafts.

Selv har jeg foreslått å omgjøre Kværnumstomta på Skreia til et senter for kosmolokalisme, da dette er et svært gammelt industristed hvor mine forfedre holdt til, på bruket Fossemøllen. På 1600-tallet måtte de som hadde fallrettighetene i Kværnumsstrykene skatte tilsvarende fem storgarder. Men det blir nok til at dette gamle industristedet blir bygd ned med boliger, slik at man kan høste en kortsiktig profitt, slik nåværende eiere ønsker det. (Heldigvis ble det ikke slik:-)

I tillegg ønsket jeg å bygge en økolandsby i tilknytning til denne kosmolokale satsningen ved Kværnum, men dette ble ikke godt mottatt av bunkerfolket:-/

-A Lost Opportunity for Skreia (A letter to Ross Chapin)


Så nå har jeg gitt opp menneskets dårskap og satser heller på å trekke meg tilbake med en liten kafé med galleri på Gjøvik, denne stakkars skakkjørte industribyen, med ei kaffebordbok full av grendepoesi (Ja, ja, og siden har Hovdetoppen falt, hva som skulle vært Gjøviks symbolske Stetind.)

Relatert

P2P ACCOUNTING FOR PLANETARY SURVIVAL

Read the whole article by Herman Daly: Growth and Free Trade: Brain-Dead Dogmas Still Kicking Hard

The two dogmas reprinted below:

(1) Growth in all micro-economic units (firms and households) is subject to the “when to stop rule” of optimization, namely stop when rising marginal cost equals declining marginal benefit. Why does this not also apply to growth of the matter-energy throughput that sustains the macro-economy, the aggregate of all firms and households? And since real GDP is the best statistical index we have of aggregate throughput, why does it not roughly hold for growth in GDP? It must be because economists see the economy as the whole system, growing into the void — not as a subsystem of the finite and non-growing ecosphere from which the economy draws resources (depletion) and to which it returns wastes (pollution). When the economy grows in terms of throughput, or real GDP, it gets bigger relative to the ecosystem and displaces ever more vital ecosystem functions. Why do economists assume that it can never be too big, that such aggregate growth can never at the margin result in more illth than wealth? Perhaps illth is invisible because it has no market price. Yet, as a joint product of wealth, illth is everywhere: nuclear wastes, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, gyres of plastic trash in the oceans, the ozone hole, biodiversity loss, climate change from excess carbon in the atmosphere, depleted mines, eroded topsoil, dry wells, exhausting and dangerous labor, exploding debt, etc. Economists claim that the solution to poverty is more growth — without ever asking if growth still makes us richer, as it did back when the world was empty, or if it has begun to make us poorer in a world that is now too full of us and our stuff. This is a threatening question, because if growth has become uneconomic then the solution to poverty becomes sharing now, not growth in the future. Sharing is now called “class warfare.”


(2) Countries whose growth has pushed their ecological footprint beyond their geographic boundaries into the ecosystems of other countries are urged by mainline economists to continue to do so under the flag of free trade and specialization according to comparative advantage. Let the rest of the world export resources to us, and we will pay with exports of capital, patented technology, copyrighted entertainment, and financial services. Comparative advantage guarantees that we will all be better off (and grow more) if everyone specializes in producing and exporting only what they are relatively better at, and importing everything else. The logic of comparative advantage is impeccable, given its premises. However, one of its premises is that capital, while mobile within nations, does not flow between nations. But in today’s world capital is even more mobile between countries than goods, so it is absolute, not comparative advantage that really governs specialization and trade. Absolute advantage still yields gains from specialization and trade, but they need not be mutual as under comparative advantage — i.e., one country can lose while the other gains. “Free trade” really means “deregulated international commerce” — similar to deregulated finance in justification and effect. Furthermore, specialization, if carried too far, means that trade becomes a necessity. If a country specializes in producing only a few things then it must trade for everything else. Trade is no longer voluntary. If trade is not voluntary then there is no reason to expect it to be mutually beneficial, and another premise of free trade falls. If economists want to keep the world safe for free trade and comparative advantage they must limit capital mobility internationally; if they want to keep international capital mobility they must back away from comparative advantage and free trade. Which do they do? Neither. They seem to believe that if free trade in goods is beneficial, then by extension free trade in capital (and other factors) must be even more beneficial. And if voluntary trade is mutually beneficial, then what is the harm in making it obligatory? How does one argue with people who use the conclusion of an argument to deny the argument’s premises? Their illogic is invincible!