This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"The "Impossible" But Inevitable Solution: Decentralization
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
What lies beyond the current failing, unsustainable versions of Capitalism and Socialism? Decentralization.
Correspondent John D. recently sent in a link to an interview with energy expert and author Jeremy Leggett. The title, "Make no mistake, this is an energy civil war" is a bit sensationalist, but the gist of his point is that centralized control of energy (and the capital that controls the energy and distribution networks) are colliding with new models of decentralized, locally autonomous control and ownership of energy generation and distribution.
Given the immense power of the banking/energy/political Elites that directly benefit from centralization of energy, capital and political power, I term this decentralization solution "impossible." Yet because it is driven by the diminishing returns of the centralized model and the emergence of the Web as an unstoppable force distributing decentralization and new models, the transition from ossified, failing centralized models to adaptive, faster-better-cheaper decentralized models is also inevitable.
This is the context of Leggett's view that there is an 'energy civil war' between the powers defending centralization and those promoting community ownership and control of energy:
You’ve just published a book called The Energy of Nations. Could you just tell people in a nutshell what they might expect to find in there?
I worry that the energy industry is in the process of repeating systemically the mistakes of the financial sector, and on multiple fronts.
It’s not all bleak because I think the neuroscientists also tell us that we have this great yearning as human beings for community and all the rest of it, and individualistic or selfish, perhaps what people on the right of the political spectrum constantly try and persuade us that we are. That all points towards the possibility of a road to renaissance and that’s why I titled the book The Energy of Nations: Risk Blindness and the Road to Renaissance. I talk about the importance of things like the Transition movement as the building blocks for this road to renaissance.
What can we learn from Germany, do you think in terms of practicality and in terms of ambition?
I think that it’s altogether very encouraging indeed. We can learn that it’s possible to renewably power a modern economy like Germany 100% with renewables, and do it much quicker than people anticipate. We can also see that the ownership structures can change radically, so that people power comes into the mainstream. As you know, more than half the renewable assets in Germany are owned by people, by people and communities.
That’s not just the small energy co-ops that are being set up by the multiple hundreds, but whole cities are talking about taking their own power into their own hands, even Berlin, with a membership movement to take control of the way that energy is created in cities. Germany is vital in the whole narrative going forward.
You talk about a localisation mega-trend and peer-to-peer lending and community-led initiatives like Transition and others, need to sit alongside the bigger things as well in terms of investment etc. How do you see those two things sitting alongside each other?
I think inevitably what’s going to happen whether people like it or not, is that communities, towns, individual houses are going to get themselves off that grid and the march of technology is going to help them. People and communities are going to become increasingly self-sufficient. When you do that, where’s the role for the national electricity grid, at a certain point? Where’s the role for a giant company like National Grid?
I think it’s an exciting vision, because you get all sorts of spin-off benefits from a transition of that kind. I don’t have a blueprint template of how we get from A to B, the globalised national, international infrastructure world to the localised world. I think that’s a work in progress that we’re all going to have to be active players."
You say at one point in The Energy of Nations, “I’m now convinced that capitalism as we know it is torpedoing our prosperity, killing our economies, threatening our children with an unliveable world. It needs to be re-engineered root and branch.” Does capitalism still have a place? What would re-engineered capitalism look like, and what does that mean for economic growth?
It depends on your definition of capitalism. Economic growth as it’s currently measured? I think its days are over. That used to be that the mantras of the people classified as the lunatic fringe, but not any more. You can read this kind of thinking in the commentary in the Financial Times. In a world with a global economy on route to six degrees, how can such a system be viewed as sane any more, much less survivable?
The more of us who start using this language, this new type of capitalism – others won’t call it capitalism at all of course – a new type of capitalism. Certainly my point in the book is that modern capitalism, the form of capitalism that’s evolved in the last few decades is basically suicidally dysfunctional and we have to turn our backs on it and introduce an alternative set of systems. That’s what I think we have the opportunity to do in building the road to renaissance."
The interview also raised the same question I have discussed in the Musings and blog: What lies beyond the current failing, unsustainable versions of Capitalism and Socialism? I think the basic answer is coming into focus: since the current iterations of Capitalism and Socialism are both systems of increasing centralization (and thus of systemic fragility), the future belongs to the Web-enabled, localized but globally networked models of decentralized capital, currencies, ownership, production and distribution.
As I have noted before: Central planning perfects the power of threats to bypass the system's defenses.
»
- 21995 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I wonder if he actually thought he was an anarchist, that would really burn...
(although there is a nasty strain of statist VD that seems to inflict a lot of European anarchists, who never fully got over the divorce from Marxism and the IWA)
I believe there is no legitimate role for government (monopoly of law and territory), that is the definition of anarchy I subscribe to.
The system I described is anarchy, in that there is no monopoly of any kind existing in it - and all monopoly is unlawful.
Does your world have unicorns?
+1
For...
An honest admission as to what anarchism requires: Conformity. Community. Governance.
[W]e can [not] have free association without every man freely subjecting themselves to Natural Law, and to some system for its implementation. -- Amagnonx
Ideally ... humanity should divide itself into communities, or clans consisting of around 500 or so individuals (as large as possible, but small enough to know each other personally), preferably connected by family - and close geography... -- Amagnox
You are describing tribal structure. But what happens when an individual does not conform? A bully or thief for example? Simply banish him (or her) so that they might predate upon another tribe?
What happens when another tribe fallen upon hard times, or even for no decernable reason, attacks your tribe, killing and robbing? And what happens if that "rogue" tribe becomes successful, militarily speaking, rolling over other tribes, increasing it's population and geographical area under control?
If every single person in this system took on responsilbility for defense, and for the establishment and maintenance of law... -- Amagnox
You'll need to implement a system for decerning the individual's political will and aggregating that will into a group consensus building and decision-making process... voting. Democracy. But pure democracy suffers from a problem -- tyranny of the majority.
As counter-intitutive as it might sound, anarchy is not about "rugged individualism" but small group governance by consensus. It requires a shared ideology and perception of human nature, and does not tolerate dissent particularly well.
Consider, for example, this forum. Anarchists are present and vocal about their views. But they all insist that before anything political can (or should) be done everyone else must share their point of view. Everyone must be "educated" in their ideology. If you do not share that point of view, your political observations and ideas are considered irrelevant and dismissed as "statist".
Moreover, that was true of Occupy anarchists as well. Esp. insofar as anarchists organized the protests and their governance... What happened? Every time the larger group departed from anarchist favored positions and policies, they were blocked (by a tyranny of the minority). Which is the other democratic problem: a tyranny of the minority (may) occur when a super-majority is required to reach a decision.
So, there you have it. Small voluntary communities are subject to depredation from within and without. To cope with these depredations requires rules (the law). To implement the law fairly requires a system. That system must account for every individual's political will and aggregate that will collectively. If a small majority of the community controls the its decision-making, a tyranny of the majority results. If a small minority is able to control the community's decision-making, a tyranny of the minority results.
All markets are politically mediated. That mediation is a necessary result of each person's natural tendency to act in their own best interests, or what they perceive those best interests to be, even at the expense of other market participants. If we wish to know how Rand's philosophy of "rugged individualism" is fairing practically, perhaps we ought consult its primary beneficiaries, Jamie and Lloyd...
"An honest admission as to what anarchism requires: Conformity. Community. Governance."
Incorrect - conformity is not required, if you do not subject yourself to natural law then you are a threat that would be best dealt with by killing - if it is simply the tribes laws you dont like, then you are free to leave. Governance is also not required, applying natural law is not governance - it is dispute resolution.
"But what happens when an individual does not conform? A bully or thief for example? Simply banish him (or her) so that they might predate upon another tribe?"
Those who fail to subject themselves to natural law are outlaws, and can and should be killed.
"What happens when another tribe fallen upon hard times, or even for no decernable reason, attacks your tribe, killing and robbing? And what happens if that "rogue" tribe becomes successful, militarily speaking, rolling over other tribes, increasing it's population and geographical area under control?"
Any tribe that will not subject itself to natural law needs to be killed off, many tribes would immediately see the threat and join together to eliminate the threat. Remember - everyone is armed and trained in the use of weapons, all conflicts will draw upon every resource available - they are fights to the death - and no doubt leaders will be targeted first.
"You'll need to implement a system for decerning the individual's political will and aggregating that will into a group consensus building and decision-making process... voting. Democracy. But pure democracy suffers from a problem -- tyranny of the majority."
The only things to vote on is natural law - and the tyranny of the majority will be subject to scientific control - voting will be required to determine things like 'How many tonnes of sulpur dioxide can be released in the atmosphere.' You vote on a scientific system to determine the safe amount, then it can be voted up or down - yes, maybe you wont get your way - but the air belongs to everyone, and a mean result is going to be the best you can hope for.
Everything that is not directly a matter of law is mediated by the free markets - my post was quite explicit, maybe you need to read it again.
I was going to answer, but seeing as how you made all my points for me, there is simply no need...
...[C]onformity is not required, if you do not subject yourself to natural law then you are a threat that would be best dealt with by killing... -- Amagnonx
Any tribe that will not subject itself to natural law needs to be killed off... -- Amagnonx
The only things to vote on is natural law - and the tyranny of the majority will be subject to scientific control... -- Amagnonx
Clearly, you are confused.
As counter-intitutive as it might sound, anarchy is not about "rugged individualism" but small group governance by consensus. It requires a shared ideology and perception of human nature, and does not tolerate dissent particularly well.
"Decentralization is being driven by technology"
If I had to vote it would be that deceltralization is being dirven by ENTOPY, but, well, that's just my opinion...
"I think this is the kind of society that technology is capable of, and hopefully we are moving towards it - wars, if they occurred at all, would be between clans and of a very limited nature - it seems to me that the risks would be too high and some agreement would be made or enforced by the greater community to keep the peace."
DO you know why wars happen? They're NOT about who has or doesn't have the coolest "technology," but about resources. ALL wars are about resources.
As much as I like the fantasy (?) of everyone just "getting along," holding hands and singing kumbaya, it's NOT a reality. And it's especially not something that has a high probability as we continue to increase our needs for sucking exponentially more stuff out of the planet.
Further, even IF we all wanted to play together nicely (and since we've hit over 7+ billion I'd have to say that, on the whole, we HAVE done so) it's going to be mighly tough to all peacefully suffer from starvation as we exceed the planet's ability to "provide." Nature doesn't like to be over-run, so I'm figuring somewhere along the line pestulance and plagues would have to step up and do double-time in order to offset the war part.
Death is how it always ends... pretending that death doesn't exist is no way of accurately predicting and or preparing for the future.
bitcoin for the win!
money, DNS, energy, there isn't much that can't be controlled by the blockchain.
hopefully sooner rather then later we will be able to get rid of politicians and have democracy running on the blockchain!
-1
For...
[M]oney, DNS, energy, there isn't much that can't be controlled by the blockchain. -- nomofiat
Including people.
Blockchains work!
http://www.wallpapermaven.com/cat/places/Easter-Island-Statues-11.html
Um, well...
Made me laugh... at our folly.
I've been voting up on your comments rather regularly it seems.
This is the plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivint
What's yours?
Vivant = Blackstone.
http://www.vivintsolar.com/en/
'Americans', as usual, are on nothing but their 'american' ways.
Decentralization means only recentralization toward a better liked center. At the moment, 'americans' simply dont like what the center is or that the center is moving away from themselves.
Move along, nothing to see but usual 'american' propaganda.
Akak wants to speak with you.
.
As depicted, it is simply the application of theory. Technological items revolve for the sake of revolving. It is a monoextremum of circularity based of the concentricity of law.
I'd like to think that I appreciate what you just posted, but I'm not certain that I can appreciate it enough :-() Seems cool :-) [so, up-arrow!]
Thank you for helping me understand what I want. I was really confused about it all...
Really?
"People and communities are going to become increasingly self-sufficient."
Sure! Tomatoes at 1.50 a pound spur me to grow my own at .75 cents a pound. If my electric bill went from $150 a month to $300 you bet I will buy that solar panel. And if gas goes to $6.00 a gallon you'll see me riding my bike all over town (even if i can still afford the gas).
Self-seficiency sounds a lot like making 'consumer choices'.
Even a die hard prepper still buys his shotgun from someone else. That gun vendor also sells to your local police and fascists governments.
Maybe like in many things scale will be considered regarding self-sufficiency especially for necessities. After all, that prepper could theoretically build his own shotgun. Level of participation or not is still a personal decision, self-seficiency still requires an initial investment of time and money, a bit of discomfort if you will.
"Self-seficiency sounds a lot like making 'consumer choices'."
Nice to be able to buy Coke OR Pepsi! (or buy Chinese solar panels [I pead guilty here- but, it's for the animals!])
Oh, 2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less. 750 million in India alone live on $0.50/day! Yeah, they're really excited about the prospects of living more "self-seficiency."
When large-scale mining, large-scale agriculture starts to falter all the new stuff will be vastly more expensive, owing to a backwardization of economies of scale. Feed costs for me are going to increase as large-scale ag falters: again, it's that economies of scale thing- I'm able to operate as small farmer because there's enough volume elsewhere to cover the infrastructural costs- need scale to support scale.
The intent of the Founders was never an all powerful central gov't. The power was to reside in the states, counties and city gov'ts.
That system has been bastardized by bastards greedy for power and money. Time for a revolution at the ballot box and throw the progressive bastards in both parties OUT! 2014 mid-term elections.
+1
For...
Time for a revolution at the ballot box and throw the progressive bastards in both parties OUT! -- d edwards
But with whom will we replace them? What alternative narrative do "we" (whomever that is) offer?
"That system has been bastardized by bastards greedy for power and money."
Ever consider that the System enables bastards? Cart and horse mixed? Naw! Humans aren't greedy or power hungry (it's only some recent activity that can be purged) </sarc>
Since when is the concept of - "perfect competition" or as some call it "pure competition" not considered to be part of capitalism?
Oh boy, a new Karl Marx.
Germany, of course, is backing away from renewables as fast as it's Birkenstock's can carry them.
Just wait an watch their retreat from imported energy. Kind of hard to make such purchases when your export $$s are down.
The problem is will the TPTB allow "the future belongs to the Web-enabled, localized but globally networked models of decentralized capital, currencies, ownership, production and distribution" or will they just start blowing shit up left and right?
"or will they just start blowing shit up left and right?"
I'm thinking that the disgruntled masses will do that. The "powers" always have others do the dirty work...
Interesting thinking. His phrase:
As I have noted before: Central planning perfects the power of threats to bypass the system's defenses.
Reminds one of the biblical passage: "Only in weakness is my strength perfected." Taleb's has done thinking in this vain as well. Stating, when one intercedes with constructs designed to preserve a system, that system does not make the necessary and natural micro-adaptations. Consequently, "Black Swan" events occur in that system which collapse it.
This was an execellent piece.
The efficient market hyposis only seemed to account for economic equalibrium. But what about what also all know exists and that is disequalibrium.
A system that can adapt will recognize both states and make comparison when the trend begins to flow in either direction. Such a system will have to remove self-interest when making adjustments. AI in other words.
The woeful misconduct of the bankers have set themselves up to be automated out of existence but they'll fight it every step of the way. Some will invest in it to attempt to control it too of course.
Bankers... anyone see any similar function in nature? That should tell you what their future is...
I was thinking aboot exactly the same thing. Big is no longer beautiful, if it ever was.
http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2014/01/market-driven-economy-vs-perfor...
That link is about the path to a solution, this one defines the problem
http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2014/01/utopians-are-heavily-read.html