[miffi]

The search term is "permacomputing" afaik.

Here's 100r's (specifically xxiivv's) page on the topic https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/permacomputing.html

The first paragraph gives a good overview of the idea:

> Permacomputing encourages the maximization of hardware lifespan, minimization of energy usage and focuses on the use of already available computational resources. It values maintenance and refactoring of systems to keep them efficient, instead of planned obsolescence, permacomputing practices planned longevity. It is about using computation only when it has a strengthening effect on ecosystems.

[lancesells]

So it's like permaculture but for software.

[hosh]

That's the idea. However, my initial criticism of the way permacomputing is formulated are:

1. We could have examined each of the 12 Permaculture Design Principle and attempted to directly apply them to software design. For example, "Observe and Interact" is so broadly useful and versatile (and the core of adversarial domains, such as warfare), it can easily be applied to software. You won't see it directly listed here: https://permacomputing.net/Principles/

2. The permaculture ethical principles are not there in full. "Care for life" refers to "Care for Earth", "Care for People", but nothing about "Fair Share". Comparing these two ways of looking at it, I don't see how the permacomputing formulation is an improvement on how the permaculture ethical principles are formulated. Furthermore, I think this has more to do with not sufficiently delving into the place of technologies within a regenerative paradigm. I am speculating here with little basis, but I don't think the people who came up with this got their hands dirty with planting, nurturing, and harvesting things.

However, reading more with 100r, CollapseOS, DuskOS, there is a lot of thought put into this even if I think there are some key things missing from my experience with permaculture.

It is why my friends and I are exploring the ideas of "permatech", what is Technology's full, integrated place within a living systems world view? We have yet to come up with anything coherent yet.

[chairmansteve]

"Technology's place within...a living systems world view"

If you mean modern high technology, I suspect it has no place.

It is a really interesting question,

[hosh]

That is why I had been having trouble with it. Modern high technology is a lot of exploitation.

I once heard a historian described technology as a lever. A small effort has greater gains.

However, we were looking at it from a different angle. What if civilization are not walls and cities — the division of labor so that peasants can support the ruling class — but rather, in _design_? When I first posed that, one of my friends went right into architectural design. (Which is fine, since we explored Christopher Alexander’s work).

But an example of what I was thinking of was this discovery that one of the cave paintings was probably a hunting calendar. It allows the tribe to count the number of moons when there is sufficient deer.

That’s a kind of design — a kind of permacomputing - a kind of civilization if we were to reframe it as design.

I might be stretching it there.

I have seen effective use of technology in permaculture. Digging up swales and basins make use technology, whether it is with a shovel, or feeding pigs in a way so that they can dig for you.

So I think there is something there.

[worldsayshi]

Do you have a forum for discussing this?

[hosh]

I do not. Maybe I should.

[Bluestein]

> planned longevity.

What a grand concept.-