Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Low Tech

opensourcelowtech.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#21

Post by fgdsgsdfdfgsdfg »

xmprt wrote: post #3

I like the idea behind this. I feel like far too often, the solutions we build for poor communities involve specific materials that can't be manufactured locally, so it just creates more dependence rather than self-sufficiency. It's one thing to build and ship 1000 bicycles to a poor village, but it's another to teach a village how to make bicycles with random spare pipes and materials they can find anywhere. That wa…

This is of course all wonderful and the ideas presented here might also be useful for Western nations if the war machine starts gaining momentum in, say, a decade or two and things will turn uncomfortable.

That said, I'm also disgusted by the fact this is necessary at all. We designed and/or let an inherently unfair game go on unimpeded and give the losers some scraps so they may survive and continue to play along with can only be called the naturally occurring and less entertaining variant of The Hunger Games.

Any changes to the status quo will have to contend with powerful questions because why build bonds with people you distrust? Why bother including insignificant nations in your decision process? Why not be top dog and trample everyone under your righteous boots? Why not exploit and generally harvest the shit out of everything in sight and retrieve resources for the absolute minimum you can get away with? These sound annoying and they are, but they are really tough questions and they demand a good answer. Just "be a good person" is not cutting it. We need systemic solutions.

In case you're wondering I have the answer: sadly I do not, but I am convinced a couple of you do so please enlighten me.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#22

Post by nchmy »

stdbrouw wrote: post #8
nchmy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you figure happened, such that people largely haven't done this?

One aspect is perhaps that simple things aren't necessarily cheap. One Laptop per Child struggled to get costs down, whereas a mass market solar panel is not self-serviceable but at their current cost, who cares. Even in the developed world, you get noticeably more bang for your buck if you buy a cheap, basic car than if you buy a cargo bike that could replace it, because of the fierce competition and huge economies…

Yeah, I agree with this. Though, I think you could make bikes for much cheaper with some ingenuity. Certainly some bike-powered appliances.

Also I think OLPC was a misguided project, as most of these things are. Its out of stem with maslows hierarchy of needs. Folks who are subsistence farmers with drought, smoke filled homes and stomach parasites don't need a laptop and academic education. They need practical and actionable tools and techniques to better meet their basic needs, a state from which they could better pursue academics etc

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#23

Post by nchmy »

sublinear wrote: post #17
nchmy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you've never spent any meaningful amount of time in the local environments, or you wouldn't have made this comment. As I elaborated on in another comment, it is commonplace to find that people who have little to no education and resources are missing countless opportunities to implement simple improvements to almost everything. This mindset of "locals know best" is, frankly, toxic. (just think about the loc…

> This mindset of "locals know best" is, frankly, toxic. (just think about the locals wherever you live to see how incompetent they are as well) [...] others who are fortunate to have more access to information, resources, education on critical thinking etc... This is insane.

Care to elaborate? (and not cut out the most important context from my comment)

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#24

Post by csomar »

xmprt wrote: post #3

I like the idea behind this. I feel like far too often, the solutions we build for poor communities involve specific materials that can't be manufactured locally, so it just creates more dependence rather than self-sufficiency. It's one thing to build and ship 1000 bicycles to a poor village, but it's another to teach a village how to make bicycles with random spare pipes and materials they can find anywhere. That wa…

Strong disagree. It's much better to get the village a cost-efficient, mass-produced good and then get it on the production program (setup factories/businesses/etc..).

These tools might be useful in war, weird remote situations or maybe when no capital/investors are willing to inject capital in some remote poor african village. But I can't see why any government that can borrow money should do that.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#25

Post by fragmede »

bloqs wrote: post #12
nchmy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree that it's incomparably more important to teach a man/village how to fish/build a bike than to give them one. Unfortunately most people who focus on "helping" are grossly incompetent and have largely misaligned incentives (and oversight). As for local innovation, it think it very much depends on where. I've visited and lived in many communities in developing nations in Latin America and there's a dist…

I had never really considered the _competence_ of help before. It makes a huge amount of sense and is a strong argument for intelligent younger folk looking for a meaningful career. Instead of engineering for the pocket lining of your chosen billionaire, why not use those incredible skills to use in frugal or humanitarian engineering

Who's taking care of me when I'm old and my body and mind are failing? Billionaires aren't gonna, but the money they pay me can be used to trade for goods and services, so hopefully when it's my time, it's less shitty.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#26

Post by nchmy »

gaigalas wrote: post #15

Reminds me of https://www.opensourceecology.org/ , but way more low tech. One could actually try the Open Source Low Tech designs without having a small fortune to spare or gathering a considerable community to cooperate.

I've never really understood the point of open source ecology. As you noted, it seems egregiously complicated and expensive. I guess that's why it seems to languish in obscurity.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#29

Post by internet_points »

Atiscant wrote: post #18

Seems somewhat related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

And Illich (where the term "tool" is quite broad, including anything from a knife to a highway system):

Tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user. The use of such tools by one person does not restrain another from using them equally. They do not require previous certification of the user. Their existence does not impose any obligation to use them. They allow the user to express his meaning in action.

Industrial tools deny this possibility to those who use them and they allow their designers to determine the meaning and expectations of others. Most tools today cannot be used in a convivial fashion.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#30

Post by Jarwain »

fgdsgsdfdfgsdfg wrote: post #21
xmprt wrote: post #3

I like the idea behind this. I feel like far too often, the solutions we build for poor communities involve specific materials that can't be manufactured locally, so it just creates more dependence rather than self-sufficiency. It's one thing to build and ship 1000 bicycles to a poor village, but it's another to teach a village how to make bicycles with random spare pipes and materials they can find anywhere. That wa…

This is of course all wonderful and the ideas presented here might also be useful for Western nations if the war machine starts gaining momentum in, say, a decade or two and things will turn uncomfortable. That said, I'm also disgusted by the fact this is necessary at all. We designed and/or let an inherently unfair game go on unimpeded and give the losers some scraps so they may survive and continue to play along wi…

Imo it depends on priorities!

What do we care more about? The present? The current generation? Or future generations? Our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? The perpetuation of human civilization? The perpetuation of human civilization with a set of values that that supports the growth and happiness of all?

That's the first question, right? Alignment. Sustainable alignment.

From there, it's all about sustaining those shared values, and minimizing risk. Build bonds: keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Or establish trust. It works out better in the long run; people don't usually Like to stab each other in the back Trampling starts cycles of revenge, and that's no fun for anyone involved either Exploitation prioritizes short term gain and screws you in the long run, more often than not.

Post reply on HN