Will the internet survive energy contraction?

From my experience, everyone pessimistic about the energy usage of the internet usually has no idea what they're talking about.
 
I have zero software background, done making assumptions yet?

Care to back up your theory that the internet is unsustainable? Care to address any of the points in this thread that show the Grand Wingnut is full of hot air? It's ok to admit you're wrong and that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
excaza said:
I have zero software background, done making assumptions yet?

Care to back up your theory that the internet is unsustainable? Care to address any of the points in this thread that show the Grand Wingnut is full of hot air? It's ok to admit you're wrong and that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Alright, what do you have a background in?

Sure can back up the theory the Internet is unsustainable, and I will address the points that people make, while for whatever reason insulting the great Grand ArchDruid John Michael Greer as I said in an earlier post later. I want to know though for the moment how many people here actually have experience in hardware and energy intensive structures.
 
TFian said:
Alright, what do you have a background in?
Click to expand...
Not software. Besides, it's irrelevant.

Sure can back up the theory the Internet is unsustainable
Click to expand...
Ok, go. Something other than incredulity, please. Maybe some numbers? Though that could be a bit too much to ask for.
 
excaza said:
Not software. Besides, it's irrelevant.


Ok, go. Something other than incredulity, please. Maybe some numbers? Though that could be a bit too much to ask for.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'll just be repeating myself. Think about this, to make the Internet work you need to maintain and power thousands of server farms, each of which use as much electricity as a midsized city, not to mention all the other costly and energy-intensive infrastructure that keeps the net running. Everything you guys mentioned in your examples could be done just as effectively without having to devote resources to building and maintaining computers. Your email to a distant friend? The message could be sent just as easily by radio using Morse Code. A local wiki, for heaven's sake, in a small rural community? Face to face communication, backed up by a notebook or two (of the paper kind), works at least as well and is vastly cheaper. This is the point that I'm trying to make here: it doesn't matter if a technology is really nifty; if there's another way to meet its actual needs that's cheaper in terms of scarce resources, that cheaper way will be more viable. Also, there are no simple CPUs - even the simplest is the result of a planet wide industrial chain that could not be duplicated on a small scale. That's true for so much of the things we use every day and think of as "simple". Because we can't have the energy to maintain such a vast power hungry network, and the fact we can't locally create our own computers without intense energy and scarce resources, the Internet is not long for this world.
 
Incredulity, bare assertion, and no numbers.

I'm surprised. :rolleyes:

Everything you guys mentioned in your example could be done just as effectively without having to devote resources to building and maintaining computers.
Click to expand...
If it could, then they wouldn't be devoting resources to building and maintaining computers.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
I wanted to ask you all, how many of you have experience, and authority when it comes to hardware matters? From my experience, everyone optimistic about the energy usage of the internet usually comes from a software background, and NOT a hardware background. When I meet people with a hardware background, they tend to agree more with the Grand ArchDruid John Michael Greer. I'm going to respond to the previous posts later, but I just wanted to ask this.
Click to expand...

How about we talk less of who says what, and more of what it is they're saying? You know, the actual arguments?

All your objections about about digital technology being unsustainable due to industrial production breaking down, are equally applicable to anything else you'd want to use electricity for. Once things are bad enough that you can't produce computers, you wouldn't be able to make refrigerators or electric lighting anyway. Which means you're spending your time looking for firewood and salt deposits.

That scenario is so catastrophic in scope that worrying about the internet is silly. You should rather be worrying about burying the large percentage of the world's population who have already died. You should be worrying that the pre-industrial technology you'd be using for everything is tragically more resource intensive. Not to mention more environmentally destructive.
 
excaza said:
Incredulity, bare assertion, and no numbers.

I'm surprised. :rolleyes:


If it could, then they wouldn't be devoting resources to building and maintaining computers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You're using the (il)logic of abundance. Sure, we build them now, because we have abundant resources. When we don't, we'll go back to less energy intensive ways of doing the same thing, Morse code, carrier pigeons, pony express.
 
Personally, I'd be more concerned with our power distribution grid failing than the internet failing.
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
How about we talk less of who says what, and more of what it is they're saying? You know, the actual arguments?

All your objections about about digital technology being unsustainable due to industrial production breaking down, are equally applicable to anything else you'd want to use electricity for. Once things are bad enough that you can't produce computers, you wouldn't be able to make refrigerators or electric lighting anyway. Which means you're spending your time looking for firewood and salt deposits.

That scenario is so catastrophic in scope that worrying about the internet is silly. You should rather be worrying about burying the large percentage of the world's population who have already died. You should be worrying that the pre-industrial technology you'd be using for everything is tragically more resource intensive. Not to mention more environmentally destructive.
Click to expand...

Oh he's (and I) are not really worried about the internet, he's just trying ti dispell the myths of a continuation of the "networked" culture, which will be disappearing soon. There's likely to be a massive Malthusian style die off, whether that's good or bad is debatable though. John Greer doesn't believe we'll have refrigerators (at least like the ones we have now) or electric lighting, and thinks our best hope is a middle age agrarian civilization.

Pre industrial technology isn't more resource intensive or environmentally destructive though.
 
TFian said:
Wrong. You're using the (il)logic of abundance. Sure, we build them now, because we have abundant resources. When we don't, we'll go back to less energy intensive ways of doing the same thing, Morse code, carrier pigeons, pony express.
Click to expand...

You mean the hypothetical resource depletion scenario you keep bandying around without any evidence that's about as likely to happen before the Sun goes out as Mothra destroying my house is?
 
excaza said:
You mean the hypothetical resource depletion scenario you keep bandying around without any evidence that's about as likely to happen before the Sun goes out as Mothra destroying my house is?
Click to expand...

Peak oil dude, peak oil.
 
Which is only a problem if you assume technology won't just shift away from petroleum. Which is a ridiculously braindead assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom