Will the internet survive energy contraction?

PixyMisa said:
Microcontrollers are churned out in the billions every year, and even the low-end ones today are much more powerful than the chips that kicked off the microcomputer revolution.

Take something like the Kinetis K60 - a nice mid-range MCU, 150MHz, 32-bit, floating point, 1MB flash + 128KB RAM on-chip, built-in networking and sundry analog & digital I/O, supports a wide range of temperatures and voltages, and easily interfaces to standard DDR RAM and LCD panels. Runs on something like 100mW. We would have killed for something that powerful back in the day, and now they're so commonplace that you don't even notice that they're there.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but many of the portable computers can be powered with a handcrank, so there's really no argument to be made that power would be a problem.
 
PixyMisa said:
Take something like the Kinetis K60 - a nice mid-range MCU, 150MHz, 32-bit, floating point, 1MB flash + 128KB RAM on-chip, built-in networking and sundry analog & digital I/O, supports a wide range of temperatures and voltages, and easily interfaces to standard DDR RAM and LCD panels. Runs on something like 100mW.
Click to expand...

I would point out: you can get 100mW of solar power from a panel that costs about $4.
 
GreyArea said:
Electricity? Radio? Refrigeration? TFian, not even the Archdruid is as pessimistic as you are. .
Click to expand...

Well GreyArea, I think you know I never said all technology would vanish, some legacies would stay in tact, but that doesn't mean industrial civilization will stick around.

GreyArea said:
Well, JMG "bothered" to get a ham radio license a couple of years ago, and he says that you could have global radio communication using very little energy. "100 watts will get you contacts on the far side of the world."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was wrong there, apparently packet radio is not only viable with little energy, but also has some great benefits. I guess the peasants will be able to communicate around the globe afterall. :p

GreyArea said:
Strangely enough, John Michael Greer likes packet radio and has written about it several times. I used to read his blog a few years ago, and he was writing about it then.
Click to expand...

Why did you stop reading him, if I may ask?

GreyArea said:
Would you consider taking this up as a hobby, TFian? It would be a good way to prove to yourself just how little energy it would take. And learning how to take old parts to build working equipment would be a useful skill in a post-collapse society.
Click to expand...

I think I will actually, if it's really as viable as it's made out to be. Who knows, ****** audio dramas may make a comeback...

GreyArea said:
And even if things don't collapse, I think that having some skills like this would make you feel better.
Click to expand...

Good point there...
 
TFian said:
Why's that?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about reasons; I'm talking about facts.

Empiricism works. Nothing else does.

Because it can be empirically proven? That's a circular argument if I've ever seen one...
Click to expand...
It might perhaps be circular if I had said something I did not actually say.

As always, your connection with reality is long-distance.
 
PixyMisa said:
I'm not talking about reasons; I'm talking about facts.

Empiricism works. Nothing else does.
Click to expand...

But how we do we create a fact though? Through empirical evidence?

PixyMisa said:
It might perhaps be circular if I had said something I did not actually say.
Click to expand...

Then how is empirical evidence independently verified, without using the same model (Empiricism) to validate it?

PixyMisa said:
As always, your connection with reality is long-distance.
Click to expand...

If it's your reality, I want it way past long distance! Hopefully in Alpha Centauri...
 
PixyMisa said:
What alternative do you propose? We tried Just Making Stuff Up, and that didn't work, even by its own standards.
Click to expand...

I'm not proposing any alternative for the moment, I'm simply wondering how empiricism is independently verified as fool proof, and the only means we can measure "truth" in the universe.
 
TFian said:
I'm not proposing any alternative for the moment, I'm simply wondering how empiricism is independently verified as fool proof, and the only means we can measure "truth" in the universe.
Click to expand...
It can't be "verified as fool proof". I never said it could.

It could be falsified. It hasn't been. Quite the opposite: It works, and nothing else does.
 
PixyMisa said:
It can't be "verified as fool proof". I never said it could.

It could be falsified. It hasn't been. Quite the opposite: It works, and nothing else does.
Click to expand...

Alright, where's the independent verification that empiricism "works", and nothing else? It's all or nothing after all yes?
 
PixyMisa said:
What is that even supposed to mean? Is it supposed to mean something?
Click to expand...

It means my dear, how do you prove empiricism independently from the framework of empiricism? All I'm asking is for independent verification that it works.
 
TFian said:
It means my dear, how do you prove empiricism independently from the framework of empiricism?
Click to expand...
I've already pointed out that you can't, and that it's neither necessary, relevant, nor meaningful, so I don't understand why you're still asking that question.
 
PixyMisa said:
I've already pointed out that you can't, and that it's neither necessary, relevant, nor meaningful, so I don't understand why you're still asking that question.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it necessary though? Why can't we put the scientific method up to the same scrutiny it applies to everything else? Are we supposed to accept empiricism as an article of faith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom