Was able to get some time this week to catchup with Bryan Boyer.
We talked about some of the work he was doing with his students, particularly challenging them to think about design interventions and prototyping those across the ‘pace layers’ as famously depicted by Stewart Brand in his book “How buildings learn”
The image is totemic for design practitioners and theorists of a certain vintage (although I’m not sure how fully it resonates with today’s digital ‘product’ design / UX/UI generation) and certainly has been something I’ve wielded over the last two decades or so.
I think my first encounter with it would have been around 2002/2003 or so, in my time at Nokia.
I distinctly remember a conference where (perhaps unsurprisingly!) Dan Hill quoted it – I think it was DIS in Cambridge Massachusetts, where I also memorably got driven around one night in a home-brew dune buggy built and piloted (for want of a better term) by Saul Griffith.
For those not familiar with it – here it is.
The ‘point’ is to show the different cadences of change and progress in different idealised strata of civilisation (perhaps a somewhat narrow WEIRD-ly defined civilisation) – and moreover, much like the slips, schisms and landslides of different geological layers – make the reader aware of the shearing forces and tensions between those layers.
It is a constant presence in the discourse which both leads to it’s dismissal / uncritical acceptance as a cliche.
But this familiarity, aside from breeding contempt means it is also something quite fun to play in semi-critical ways.
While talking with Bryan, I discussed the biases perhaps embedded in showing ‘fashion’ as a wiggly ‘irrational’ line compared to the other layers.
What thoughts may come from depicting all the layers as wiggly?
Another thought from our chat was to extend the geological metaphor to the layers.
Geologists and earth scientists often find the most interesting things at the interstices of the layers. Deposits or thin layers that tell a rich tale of the past. Tell-tale indicators of calamity suck as the K–Pg/K-T boundary. Annals of a former world.
The laminar boundary between infrastructure and institutions is perhaps the layer that gets the least examination in our current obsession with “product”…
I’ve often discussed with folks the many situations where infrastructure (capex) is mistaken for something that can replace institutions/labour (opex) – and where the role of service design interventions or strategic design prototypes can help mitigate.
In the pace layers, perhaps we can call that the “Dan Hill Interstitial Latencies Layer” – pleasingly recurrent in its acronymic form (D-HILL) and make it irregular and gnarly to indicate the difficulties there…
The Representational Planar OP-Ex layer (R-POPE) might be another good name, paying homage to the other person I associate with this territory, Richard Pope. I’ve just started reading Richard’s book “Platformland” which I’m sure will have a lot to say about it.
“We might interact with them as individuals but they’re inherently collective, social, and spatial. Because they bring resources to where they’re used, they create enduring relationships not just between the people who share the network but also between those people and place, where they are in the world and the landscape the network traverses. These systems make manifest our ability to cooperate to meet universal needs and care for each other.”
So, perhaps… rather than superficial snark about a design talk cliche, the work of unpacking and making connective tissue across the pace layers might seem more vital in that context.
John De La Parra, a food scientist from the Rockerfeller Foundation spoke on the first day of The Conference, after a pretty esoteric (to me) presentation that asked us to participate in a guided meditation, listen to plants and submit our dreams to an experimental app.
“See, there are basically two kinds of Philosophy – one’s called prickly, the other one is called goo. Prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical – they like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague, big picture, random, imprecise, incomplete and irrational. Prickly people believe in particles, goo people believe in waves. They always argue with each other but what they don’t realize is neither one of them can take their position without their opposition being there. You wouldn’t know you are advocating prickles unless someone else was advocating goo. You wouldn’t even know what prickles was and what goo was. Life is not prickles or goo, its gooey-prickles or prickly-goo.”
That stuck with me – and I searched for the quote on my return to the UK – to find that it had been animated, in a production from… Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame.
Nice one, universe.
* Incidentally, note the anachronism in that scene from “Her”, where Artificial Superintelligence coincides with gas hobs and stove-top kettles!Paging Rewiring America to demand an electrified directors cut!
Usually I’d write up the talk here, but it’s over at my new site Kardashevstreet.com, where I’ll be posting stuff related to work on solar and the energy transition from now on.
Since leaving Lunar Energy at the end of July, I’ve been trying to figure out how to keep going in the loose domain of ‘design as it relates to the energy transition’ – and have a few things in the works which will manifest there over the next few months hopefully …
I left my role as Head of Design at Lunar Energy at the end of July this year after roughly 2.5years. I originally posted this to LinkedIn at the time, but thought I would repost it here where I own the words (a bit) more.
After 2.5 action-packed years, today is my last day as head of design at Lunar Energy
I’m grateful to my colleagues for all I’ve learned during that time, and for Chris Wright, Simon Daniel and Kunal Girotra for hiring me in the first place, after I left Google back in 2021.
It was a fantastic challenge to work hands-on across every aspect of design at a startup again – from the brand identity, to the industrial design, app UX all the way to compliance labels, packaging and installer collateral. Oh and all the fun internal schwag like the ‘mission patch’ stickers you can see here on my laptop as I hand it back.
I’m really proud of the work the team have done so far – elevating great design and experience in the service of their mission to move our homes to be powered by the endless energy of our Sun.
Lunar will continue to deliver on the design and quality of end-user experience – as it ramps up installation of the Lunar System this year. I’ll be cheering them on, but as the 0-to-1 challenges have slowed, it’s time for me to move on.
Well, a bit of a break through August and hanging out with the family – I think it’s the first time in a couple of decades I don’t have something new immediately lined up, so I’m going to enjoy that feeling for now!
I have some speaking and teaching lined up which I’ll be able to speak about soon – but very up for a chat about the near-future if you think that there’s something matt-shaped there I should know about.
Aside from clean energy hardware, software and services – I’m keen to get back into the fray of AI, especially personal AI experiences across hw & sw such as I’d been working on prior to leaving Google.
But for now, deleting slack (phew) from my phone… and onwards!
Well – August is over, and now I’m actively looking around for those Jones-shaped jobs.
Get in touch if you would like to chat to me about teaching, consultancy, project work or even full-time opportunities in the realms of AI across HW&SW, design for the energy transition or anything else that you think my be up my (Kardashev) street.
I left my job at Lunar Energy last month and August has been about recharging – some holidays with family and also wandering London a bit catching up with folks, seeing some art/design, and generally regenerative flaneur-y.
Yesterday, for instance, was off to lunch with my talented friends at the industrial design firm Approach Studio in Hackney.
This entailed getting the overground, and in doing so found something wonderful at Brockley Station.
Placed along the platform were “InfoTotems” (at least that’s what they were called on the back of them). Sturdy, about 1.5m high and with – crucially in the bright SE London sunlight of August – easily-readable low-power E-Ink screens.
E-ink “InfoTotem” at Brockley Station, SE London
They seemed to function as very simple but effective dynamic way-finding, nudging me down the platform to where it predicted I’d find a less-busy carriage.
Location sensitive, dynamic signage: E-ink “InfoTotem” at Brockley Station, SE London
Wonderfully, when I did so, I got this message on the next InfoTotem.
“You’re in the right place”: contextual reassurance from E-ink “InfoTotem” at Brockley Station, SE London
Nothing more than that – no extraneous information, just something very simple, reassuring and useful.
It felt really appropriate and thoughtful.
Not overreaching, over promising , overloading with *everything* else this thing could possible do as a software-controlled surface.
Very nice, TfL folks.
E-ink “InfoTotem” at Brockley Station, SE London: Back view, UID…
I’m going to try to do a bit more poking on the provenance of this work, and where it might be heading, as I find it really delightful.
It made me recall one of my favourite BERG projects I worked on, “The Journey” which was for Dentsu London – looking at ways to augment the realities of a train journey with light touch digital interventions on media surfaces along the timeline of the experience.
Place-based reassurance: Sketch for “The Journey” work with BERG for Dentsu London
Place-based reassurance: E-Ink magnetic-backed dynamic signage. Still from “The Journey” work with BERG for Dentsu London
I think what I like about the InfoTotems – is that instead of a singular product doing a thing on the platform, it’s treated as a spatial experience between the HW surfaces, and as a result it feels like a service inhabiting the place, rather than just the product.
Without that overloading I was referring to, what else could they do?
Obviously this example of nudging me down the platform to a less-busy carriage is based on telemetry it’s received from the arriving train.
Could there be more that conveys the spirit of the place – observations or useful nuggets – that are connected to where you are temporarily, but where the totems sit more permanently.
In “The Journey” there’s a lovely short bit where Jack is travelling through the UK countryside and looks at a ticket that has been printed for him, a kind of low-res augmented reality.
It’s a prompt for him to look out the window to notice something, knowing where he’s sitting and what time he’s going to go past a landmark.
Could low-powered edge AI start do something akin to this? To build out context or connections between observations made about the surroundings?
Cyclist counter sign in Manchester UK, Image via road.cc
We’ve all seen signs that count – for example ‘water bottles filled’ or ‘bike riders using this route today’ – but an edge AI could perhaps do something more lyrical, or again use the multiple positioned screens along the platform to tell a more serialised, unique story.
Maybe it has a memory of place, a journal. It would need some delicate, sensitive, playful non-creepy design – as well as technological underpinnings ie. Privacy preserving sensing and edge-AI.
I recall Matt Webb also working with Hoxton Analytics who were pursuing stuff in this space to create non-invasive sensing of things like traffic and footfall in commercial space.
In terms of edge AI that starts to relate to the spatial world, I’m tracking the work of friends who have started Archetype.ai to look at just that. I need to delve not it and understand it more.
“A visual language to demystify the tech in cities.” – Patrick Keenan et al, Sidewalk Labs, c2019
Of course the danger is once we start covering it in these icons of disclosure, and doing more and more mysterious things with our totems, we lose the calm ‘just enough internet’ approach that I love so much about this current iteration.
Maybe they’re just right as they are – and I should listen to them…
A couple of weeks ago, at the end of July, I booked a slot to try out the Apple Vision Pro.
It has been available for months in the USA, and might already be in the ‘trough of disillusionment’ there already – but I wanted to give it a try nonetheless.
I sat on a custom wood and leather bench in the Apple Store Covent Garden that probably cost more than a small family car, as a custom machine scanned my glasses to select the custom lenses that would be fitted to the headset.
I chatted to the personable, partially-scripted Apple employee who would be my guide for the demo.
Eventually the device showed up on a custom tray perfectly 10mm smaller than the custom sliding shelf mounted in the custom wood and leather bench.
The beautifully presented Apple Vision Pro at the Apple Store Covent Garden
And… I got the demo?
It was impressive technically, but the experience – which seemed to be framed as one of ‘experiencing content’ left me nonplused.
I’m probably an atypical punter, but the bits I enjoyed the most were the playful calibration processes, where I had to look at coloured dots and pinch my fingers, accompanied by satisfying playful little touches of motion graphics and haptics.
That is, the stuff where the spatial embodiment was the experience was the most fun, for me…
Apple certainly have gone to great pains to try a and distinguish the Vision Pro from AR and VR – making sure it’s referenced throughout as ‘spatial computing’ – but there’s very little experience of space, in a kinaesthetic sense.
It’s definitely conceived of as ‘spatial-so-long-as-you-stay-put-on-the-sofa computing’ rather than something kinetic, embodied.
The technical achievements of the fine grain recognition of gesture are incredible – but this too serves to reduce the embodied experience.
At the end of the demo, the Apple employee seemed to be noticeably crestfallen that I hadn’t gasped or flinched at the usual moments through the immersive videos of sport, pop music performance and wildlife.
He asked me what I would imagine using the Vision Pro for – and I said int he nicest possible way I probably couldn’t imagine using it – but I could imagine interesting uses teamed with something like Shapr3d and the Apple Pencil on my iPad.
He looked a little sheepish and said that wasn’t probably going to happen but sooner with SW updates, I could use the Vision Pro as an extended display. OK- that’s … great?
But I came away imagining more.
I happened to run into an old friend and colleague from BERG in the street near the Apple Store and we started to chat about the experience I’d just had.
I unloaded a little bit on them, and started to talk about the disappointing lack of embodied experiences.
We talked about the constraint of staying put on the sofa – rather than wandering around with the attendant dangers.
But we’ve been thinking about ‘stationary’ embodiment since Dourish, Sony Eyetoy and the Wii, over 20 years ago.
It doesn’t seem like that much of a leap to apply some of those thoughts to this new level of resolution and responsiveness that the Vision Pro presents.
With all that as a preamble – here are some crappy sketches and first (half-formed) thoughts I wanted to put down here.
Imagining the combination of a Vision Pro, iPad and Apple Pencil
Vision Pro STL Printer Sim
The first thing that came to mind in talking to my old colleague in the street was to take some of the beautiful realistically-embedded-in-space-with-gorgeous-shadows windows that just act like standard 2D pixel containers in the Vision Pro interface and turn them into ‘shelves’ or platens that you could have 3D virtual objects atop.
One idea was to extend my wish for some kind of Shapr3D experience into being able to “previsualise” the things I’m making in the real world. The app already does a great job of this with it’s AR features, but how about having a bit of fun with it, and rendering the object on the Vision Pro via a super fast, impossibly capable (simulated) 3d printer – that of course because it’s simulated can print in any material…
Sketch of Vision Pro 3d sim-printer
(Roughly) Animated sketch of Vision Pro 3d sim-printer
Once my designed objected had been “printed” in the material of my choosing, super-fast (and without any of the annoying things that can happen when you actually try to 3d print something…) I could of course change my scale in relation to it to examine details, place it in beautiful inaccessible immersive surroundings, apply impossible physics to it etc etc. Fun!
Vision Pro Pottery
Extending the idea of the virtual platen – could I use my iPad in combination with with Vision pro as a cross-over real/virtual creative surface in my field of view. Rather than have a robot 3d printer do the work for me, could I use my hands and sculpt something on it?
Could I move the iPad up and down or side to side to extrude or lathe sculpted shapes in space in front of me?
Could it spin and become a potter’s wheel with the detailed resolution hand detection of the Vision Pro picking up the slightest changes to give fine control to what I’m shaping.
Is Patrick Swayze over my shoulder?
Vision Pro + iPad sculpting in space.
Maybe it’s something much more throw-away and playful – like using the iPad as an extremely expensive version of a deformed wire coat-hanger to create streams of beautiful, iridescent bubbles as you drag it through the air – but perhaps capturing rare butterflies or fairies in them as you while away the hours atop Machu Picchu or somewhere similar where it would be frowned up to spill washing-up liquid so frivolously…
Making impossible bubbles with an iPad in Vision Pro world
Of course this interaction owes more than a little debt to a previous iPad project I saw get made first hand, namely BERG’s iPad Light-painting
Although my only real involvement in that project was as a photographic model…
Your correspondent behind an iPad-lightpainted cityscape (Image by Timo, of course)
Pencils, Pads, Platforms, Pots, Platens, Plinths
Perhaps there is an interesting little more general, sober, useful pattern in these sketches – of horizontal virtual/real crossover ‘plates’ for making, examining and swapping between embodied creation with pencil/iPad and spatial examination and play with the Vision Pro.
I could imagine pinching something from the vertical display windows ion Vision Pro to place onto my ipad (or even my watch?) in order to keep it, edit it, change something about it – before casting it back into the simulated spatial reality of the Vision Pro.
Perhaps it allows for a relationship between two realms that feels more embodied and ‘real’ without having to leave the sofa.
Perhaps it also allows for less ‘real’ but more fun stuff to happen in the world of the Vision Pro (which in the demo seems doggedly to anchor on ‘real’ experience verissimilitude – sport, travel, family, pop concerts)
Perhaps my Apple watch can be more of a Ben 10 supercontroller – changing into a dynamic UI to the environment I’m entering, much like it changes automatically when I go swimming with it and dive under…
Anyway – was very much worth doing the demo, I’d recommend it, if only for some quick stretching (and sketching) of the mindlegs.
My sketches in a cafe a few days after the demo
All in all I wish the Vision Pro was just *weirder*.
Back when it came out in the US in February I did some more sketches in reaction to that thought… I can’t wait to see something like a bonkers Gondry video created just for the Vision Pro…
As a fan of Alan Kay and the original vision of the Dynabook is made me very happy.
But moreover – as someone who has never been that excited by the chatbot/voice obsessions of BigTech, it was wonderful to see.
Of course the proof of this pudding will be in the using, but the notion of a real-time magic notebook where the medium is an intelligent canvas responding as an ‘intelligence amplifier‘ is much more exciting to me than most of the currently hyped visions of generative AI.
I was particularly intrigued to see the more diagrammatic example below, which seemed to belong in the conceptual space between Bret Victor’s Dynamicland and Papert’s Mathland.
I recall when I read Papert’s “Mindstorms” (back in 2012 it seems? ) I got retroactively angry about how I had been taught mathematics.
The ideas he advances for learning maths through play, embodiment and experimentation made me sad that I had not had the chance to experience the subject through those lenses, but instead through rote learning leading to my rejection of it until much later in life.
As he says “The kind of mathematics foisted on children in schools is not meaningful, fun, or even very useful.”
Perhaps most famously he writes:
“a computer can be generalized to a view of learning mathematics in “Mathland”; that is to say, in a context which is to learning mathematics what living in France is to learning French.”
Play, embodiment, experimentation – supported by AI – not *done* for you by AI.
I’ve long thought the assistant model should be considered harmful. Perhaps the Apple approach announced at WWDC means it might not be the only game in town for much longer.
My first email to him had the subject line of this blog post: “Magic notebooks, not magic girlfriends” – which I think must have intrigued him enough to respond.
This, in turn, led to the fantastic experience of meeting up with him a few times while he was based in Edinburgh and having him write a series of brilliant pieces (for internal consumption only, sadly) on what truly personal AI might mean through his lens of cognitive science and philosophy.
As a tease here’s an appropriate snippet from one of Professor Clark’s essays:
“The idea here (the practical core of many somewhat exotic debates over the ‘extended mind’) is that considered as thinking systems, we humans already are, and will increasingly become, swirling nested ecologies whose boundaries are somewhat fuzzy and shifting. That’s arguably the human condition as it has been for much of our recent history—at least since the emergence of speech and the collaborative construction of complex external symbolic environments involving text and graphics. But emerging technologies—especially personal AI’s—open up new, potentially ever- more-intimate, ways of being cognitively extended.”
I think that’s what I object to, or at least recoil from in the ‘assistant’ model – we’re abandoning exploring loads of really rich, playful ways in which we already think with technology.
Drawing, model making, acting things out in embodied ways.
Back to Papert’s Mindstorms:
“My interest is in the process of invention of “objects-to-think-with,” objects in which there is an intersection of cultural presence, embedded knowledge, and the possibility for personal identification.”
“…I am interested in stimulating a major change in how things can be. The bottom line for such changes is political. What is happening now is an empirical question. What can happen is a technical question. But what will happen is a political question, depending on social choices.”
The some-what lost futures of Kay, Victor and Papert are now technically realisable.
“what will happen is a political question, depending on social choices.”
That is, Apple are toolmakers, at heart – and personal device sellers at the bottom line. They don’t need to maximise attention or capture you as a rent (mostly). That makes personal AI as a ‘thing’ that can be sold much more of viable choice for them of course.
Apple are far freer, well-placed (and of coursse well-resourced) to make “objects-to-think-with, objects in which there is an intersection of cultural presence, embedded knowledge, and the possibility for personal identification.”
The wider strategy of “Apple Intelligence” appears to be just that.
But – my hope is the ‘magic notebook’ stance in the new iPad calculator represents the start of exploration in a wider, richer set of choices in how we interact with AI systems.
Including the assertion that most of the folk who see it as a goal to be emulated in our technologies haven’t watched the end.
The end (which I did watch) if memory serves is where the AIs ‘leave’ to go hang out with the emulated ghost of Alan Watts in the Oort Cloud.
And it’s ok, cos everyone then realises how alienated they’ve been by technofeudalism, and go for a picnic.
Or something.
I was trying to find a talk that Kevin Slavin gave, 16 or so years ago at the Architectural Association – at the launch of the BLDGBLOG book.
I can’t.
But again, if memory serves, it’s epic coda was the machines full of HFT algos ascending, like the end of Her, to a realm of pure lightspeed hyperfinance, uncoupled from the physical world they had been chained to.
Maybe, on a good day, I think the machines, and the people who think like machines will delaminate themselves, and we’ll be left behind – but it’ll be ok, because we’ll have people like Louis Cole.
No Miracles Necessary in the Chobani Cinematic Universe
I realise I’ve had a set of beliefs.
Some which are (unfortunately, probably) somewhere on the spectrum toward the extreme techno-optimist views espoused since by those with various dubious political views.
That is – despite the patient explanations of various far-cleverer friends of mine – I find I cannot become comfortable with even the most cosy narratives of what has become called “degrowth“.
Perhaps it is easier for me to imagine the end of the world rather than the end of capitalism, but it does rather seem that we missed that already.
We have gone beyond the end of capitalism into techno-feudalism and the beginning era of the Klepts – and are very much in the foothills of The Jackpot – so maybe Mark Fisher’s phrase gets updated with an “and” instead of the “rather than”…
I’m no PPE grad, and my discomfort with degrowth is not all that articulate (and subsequently it will be deconstructed articulately by those who hold it as a TINA of the left) but simply put, the root of my ill-ease with the term is “who does it hurt”.
It just doesn’t feel like the pursuit of degrowth would be any more equitable globally than untrammelled hyper-capitalist growth.
Maybe I’m very wrong – but globally-managed, distributed, equitable degrowth just doesn’t seem plausible.
And the more likely ‘degrowth for me, no growth for thee’ also doesn’t seem like it will fly (or take the train). I guess most of all when I hear the term degrowth I flinch from the point of view of the privilege (including mine) it requires to imagine it.
Why am I putting this lengthy and awkward disclaimer here?
I guess because I am a shamefaced technoptimist – the name of the blog gives that away – but of the fully-automated luxury communism variety (actually I’d plump for semi-automated convivial social democracy, but then I’m also a bit of a centrist dad to add to my sins) and also that I’m not in the DAC/micronukes/fusion camp of extreme VC-led technoptimism around climate.
To be clear before you start an intervention, I’m certainly not in Marc Andreesen’s camp – I think / hope I’m sat at the bar somewhere in between Dave Karpf and Noah Smith.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love fusion to happen – but I’ve been thinking that for about 40 years or more.
Was I the only one to rip the press cuttings of Fleischman and Pons from my teenage bedroom wall with a tear in my eye?
I recently read Arthur Turrell’s “The Star Builders” – and though it protests we are closer than we have ever been – it still seems asymptotically out of reach.
I’m also not waving away the extractive toll off the ‘no miracles necessary’ on the planet, or the regimes and injustices that can be supported by it – though it’s always worth posting this as a reminder.
The recent work by Superflux for the WEF underlines the importance of addressing the many other planetary boundaries and negative impacts on the Earth’s systems that our current Standard Operating Procedures are causing.
Adam recently reminded me over lunch – even the “No Miracles Necessary” future depends on the not-insubstantial miracle of having a complex world economy and industrial base to manufacture the PV panels, batteries, and turbines.
Again – the first minutes of James Burke’s “Connections” springs to mind in terms of the vertiginous tangle of systems we rely on.
Climate/Earth-System breakdown could put paid to that too.
But ultimately – I am is a designer in the technology sector, latterly for the past two years in the energy tech sector – and my view of the designer in that world is to help imagine, illustrate, conceive and communicate the ‘protopia’ or anti-anti-utopia that the ‘no miracles needed’ prescription could lead to (more on this later).
As I said in Oslo, and before/since – my measure of state of that art is not from Hollywood or Cupertino – but a yoghurt company based in New York State.
AHEM.
Yep.
Ultimately, I’m a middle-aged, middle-class white man in the global north clinging on to the fictional technologically-advanced long term futures for humanity that he grew up with – whether they are The Federation, The Culture, The various KSR Mondragonian world-lines or Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
So maybe read the rest of this with that and a pinch of sustainably-sourced salt in mind…
Part 2: I can’t see the other side of the donut from Earth.
I’m sure many of you reading this will have read Kate Raworth’s excellent “Donut Economics” – or at least have a passing acquaintance with the central idea.
That is – we should look to inhabit a zone between resource use to support a social floor of equity and fairness and the planetary boundaries that provide those resources – which describes the diagrammatic donut.
But – what if one of those planetary boundaries is not like the others?
What if one of those planetary boundaries is not quite the same?
If one of those planetary boundaries is not like the others…
Now it’s time to play our game…
The potential renewable energy we could harness as a civilisation is vast.
The solar potential alone is 104 more than we currently need.
That’s before we go beyond “no miracles” tech into fusion.
What happens if we extend one edge of the donut by four orders of magnitude?
What does a Type-1 Donut Economics look like?
(Admission: I cheated a little in the title of this post – a Dyson Sphere would be a Type-2 Civilisation, capturing the entire energy output of The Sun.)
Well – it was 2023, so of course I asked a LLM.
Me:How might one reconcile donut economics and planetary boundaries to economic activity with the notion of Kardashev type one civilisation?
ChatGPT: Reconciling “donut economics” (which focuses on balancing the needs of the environment with the needs of society) and “planetary boundaries” (which identifies the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate) with the idea of a Kardashev Type I civilization (a civilization that can harness and use all available energy resources on its home planet) is a challenge but not impossible. Here’s a brief reconciliation approach:
Shared Goal:
Recognize that both the concepts of donut economics and the Kardashev scale aim for a sustainable, thriving civilization. Donut economics seeks to meet humanity’s basic needs without overshooting our ecological ceiling, and a Type I civilization seeks to maximize energy use in a sustainable manner.
Redefine Energy Mastery:
A true Kardashev Type I civilization would not just be about harnessing all energy but doing so sustainably. This means developing energy sources that do not breach our planetary boundaries.
Technological Advancement:
Invest in technologies that allow for increased energy utilization without environmental degradation. Examples include highly efficient renewable energy, energy storage solutions, and perhaps even fusion power.
Circular Economy:
Align the principles of donut economics with the growth of civilization. This includes designing products for longevity, easy repair, and recycling; minimizing waste; and creating closed-loop systems that mimic natural processes.
Education & Values:
Cultivate societal values that prioritize sustainability and the well-being of all its members. By educating the population about the importance of planetary boundaries and sustainable growth, a Type I civilization can emerge that respects these boundaries.
Integrate Economic and Ecological Thinking:
Traditional economic models often treat environmental factors as externalities. In moving towards a Kardashev Type I civilization, it’s essential to integrate ecological factors into the very heart of economic models and decision-making processes.
Global Collaboration:
A Type I civilization implies global cooperation. This can be seen as an extension of the social foundation in donut economics, where global cooperation helps ensure everyone’s basic needs are met while respecting planetary limits.
Continuous Monitoring and Feedback:
Develop and maintain a global monitoring system to ensure that as we approach a Type I civilization status, we do not exceed planetary boundaries. Implement corrective measures when needed.
In essence, becoming a Kardashev Type I civilization while adhering to the principles of donut economics and respecting planetary boundaries means merging advanced technological capacities with deep ecological and social responsibility. It’s a future where we harness the full potential of our planet without harming it, ensuring prosperity and well-being for all.
Me: One of my questions is whether using more energy (so long as it is sustainable, renewable and zero carbon eg solar) is incompatible with donut economics
ChatGPT: Using more energy is not inherently incompatible with donut economics, as long as that energy use aligns with the principles of sustainability and social equity inherent in the donut model.
Let’s break this down:
Ecological Ceiling:
The outer ring of the “donut” represents the ecological limits we should not surpass to avoid environmental degradation. Using sustainable, renewable, and zero-carbon energy sources like solar helps ensure we do not exceed this ecological ceiling.
Social Foundation:
The inner ring of the “donut” signifies the social basics that every individual should have access to, such as food, water, health, education, etc. Using more renewable energy can support these goals if it’s done in a way that ensures equitable distribution and accessibility. For instance, renewable energy can power schools in off-grid areas, provide clean cooking solutions, or pump clean water, thereby aiding in achieving the social foundation.
Growth vs. Development:
It’s essential to differentiate between growth for the sake of growth (which can be detrimental) and genuine development that meets human needs without compromising the environment. Using more energy is acceptable if it’s channelled towards genuine development and not just consumption for consumption’s sake.
Efficiency and Resilience:
While using more renewable energy, it’s crucial to prioritize efficiency. This means optimizing energy consumption to get the most benefit out of every unit of energy and designing systems that are resilient to potential shocks.
Holistic Well-being:
A significant point in donut economics is that endless economic growth (usually measured as GDP growth) is not the ultimate goal. Instead, the objective is holistic well-being. If using more energy contributes to holistic well-being without causing ecological harm, it aligns with the principles of donut economics.
In summary, using more energy in and of itself is not contrary to the principles of donut economics. However, it’s the how and why of that energy use that matters. If the energy is sourced sustainably, used efficiently, directed towards genuine development, and contributes to holistic well-being without overshooting ecological limits or leaving anyone behind, then it aligns with the philosophy of donut economics.
Me:But could you see a route to growth or new capabilities for a global civilisation due to energy use that is orders of magnitude higher than now, so long as it is zero carbon (eg solar, fusion) – would that be an enlarged donut?
ChatGPT: Certainly, there’s a potential route to growth and new capabilities for a global civilization through a significant increase in energy use, as long as it’s sustainable and zero-carbon.
This could, metaphorically speaking, result in an “enlarged donut,” where the scale and capabilities of civilization expand while still maintaining the balance between ecological limits and social needs.
Technological Advancement:
A significant increase in energy availability, especially from sustainable sources like solar or fusion, can fuel technological advancements in various sectors, from transportation and infrastructure to research and space exploration. This could lead to breakthroughs we haven’t yet imagined.
Space Exploration and Colonization:
With energy availability orders of magnitude higher than now, humanity could potentially undertake large-scale space missions, colonizing other celestial bodies, mining asteroids, or even reaching for interstellar travel.
Global Infrastructure Projects:
Massive energy availability could facilitate projects that benefit humanity globally, like global transportation networks, large-scale desalination plants for potable water, or projects that counteract climate change effects.
Elevated Living Standards Globally:
A tremendous amount of sustainable energy could enable the global provision of high living standards, including universal access to healthcare, education, and other public goods, leading to an expanded social foundation in the donut.
New Economic Models:
Such energy abundance could challenge traditional economic models and give rise to new ways of value creation, distribution, and consumption, leading to more equitable and sustainable economic systems.
Ecological Restoration:
Excess energy can be employed in large-scale ecological restoration projects, actively reversing some of the damage done to the planet, from reforestation to ocean cleanup.
However, there are considerations:
Physical Limits:
Even if the energy is zero-carbon, there are still physical limits to consider, such as land use, resource extraction for technology, and potential waste from energy infrastructure.
Equity and Governance:
An abundance of energy could exacerbate inequality if not distributed equitably. Robust governance and frameworks would be necessary to ensure that the benefits of such energy abundance are shared widely.
Cultural and Social Adaptation:
Rapid technological and infrastructure changes fueled by energy abundance would require cultural and social adaptations, making it essential to consider the well-being and adaptability of communities.
Holistic Well-being:
As mentioned before, the end goal shouldn’t be growth for growth’s sake but holistic well-being. An enlarged donut should still maintain this perspective.
In essence, an “enlarged donut” resulting from significant energy growth can be envisioned, where the scale of human capabilities and infrastructure grows but remains within a sustainable and equitable framework. The key is to ensure that this growth enhances the well-being of all without compromising the planet’s ecological integrity.
I mean, that’s pretty good, right? It turns out GPT stands for “Green Plenty Technologies”?
Of course all the caveats around GenAI apply – including the confirmation bias that is baked in to such a dialog.
But!
It’s interesting to me as a starting point for some good old-fashioned human thinking around this stuff. I’m curious if the various bodies that have taken up the mantle of Donut Economics are looking at “Radically Expanded Donuts”… R.E.D. = Green???
One thing that I caught from the dialog was the idea I think I first encountered from Deb Chachra’s newsletter – that we are encouraged to think about energy efficiency over material efficiency, when in fact energy is practically infinite in supply and matter is not.
And it’s not that energy efficiency is a bad thing, far from it – pursuing technologies of energy efficiency in a Type-1 world will just extend the headroom of the donut – but much of it comes from a place of considering energy as something produced by the combustion of finite matter.
We should add to that the externalities of energy use, particularly heat – and moving to a NMN world of full electrification would not remove that exhaust heat production but would hugely mitigate against it.
I’ll also hope that acts as a bulwark against wasteful crypto bullshit… Abhorring waste and scams are not the same as imagining beyond energy penury.
Our “imaginaries” are constrained by what we imagine the planetary boundaries are – which I think partly leads to my dissatisfaction with degrowth narratives – and so, perhaps, designers can step in to help construct new ones.
I’m not sure what they might be.
I have thoughts of course (see later *)
Genres such as Solarpunk are not yet mainstream – even within the discourse of those familiar with or exploring how to enact Donut Economics (please correct me if I’m wrong here!!!).
But – I’m also not sure it’s for me to create those imaginaries.
Which leads me nicely to the brief I put this spring of 2024 to the students at Goldsmiths Design.
Part 3: Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Kardashev Street?
I was very pleased to be asked by Goldsmiths Design to help set an “industry brief” for the second year students in their spring term.
When I got together with the team there at the end of 2023, this obsession with the “Radically Expanded Donut” was in full flight and so it was somewhat unloaded on them at an evening at The New Cross House.
The conversation led from the notion of a Kardashev Type-1 planet, to what it would mean anchored in place and routine of daily life.
We started to flesh that out.
What would a Kardashev Type-1 Street be like to live in?
To move into? To move out of? To live in the next street along, that had not yet realised it’s Type-1 potential for whatever reason?
How do you start that process, or encourage others to do so?
What interconnections, relationships and tensions might arise?
What institutions (financial or otherwise) and services would need to be invited and sustained to support it? What might be the equivalent of the mutual institutions born out of the Industrial Revolution for an equally revolutionary equitable NMN transition?
In Oslo back in May 2023, we’d been made familiar with the custom of “dugnad“, where the occupants of a apartment block work together to maintain their common infrastructure and spaces.
What rituals and expectations might be born on a Kardashev Type-1 street. How would they be transmitted both across communities, cultures and generations?
The students wrestled with the brief admirably – and I’ll post some of the outcomes here soon if I can.
* Part 4 / KardaCoda or Willfully-generative human with no undo vs GenAI
Finally – when asking ChatGPT about all this back in the autumn of 2023, it declined to create a diagram of the Radically Expanded Donut for me.
What it did (kinda) produce was a brief:
I’m sorry, I cannot create drawings directly. However, I can describe how to visualize or design such a diagram based on the concept:
Inner Circle – Social Foundation:
This remains as the core of the donut, representing essential human needs.
You might want to expand this circle to show a broader range of social amenities, reflecting the increased capabilities of a civilization with massive energy resources. This could include advanced education, universal healthcare, enhanced connectivity, etc.
Outer Circle – Ecological Ceiling:
This circle might be farther out than in the traditional donut, reflecting the greater capabilities and infrastructure of an advanced civilization.
Despite the enlargement, it would still emphasize sustainability and the need to avoid overshooting ecological limits. This means not surpassing boundaries like land use change, freshwater use, or other ecological parameters.
Space Between The Circles – The Safe and Just Space:
This area, which represents the space in which humanity can thrive sustainably, would be considerably broader.
You can divide this space into segments, each representing different sectors fueled by the energy abundance: technological advancements, space exploration, global infrastructure, etc.
Additional Elements:
Consider adding visuals that represent the vast energy sources (solar arrays, fusion reactors, etc.) around the donut.
Depict global collaboration symbols, equity symbols, and other elements that emphasize the importance of shared benefits and governance.
To create this diagram, you could use graphic design software like Adobe Illustrator, Canva, or even simpler tools like PowerPoint. Once you have a clear mental image or sketch, you can work on refining it digitally. If you’re not comfortable creating it yourself, you might want to share the concept with a graphic designer who can bring it to life.
This set me off on the quixotic path of being the slow human illustrator of the GenAI’s “imagination”.
I started sketching. I ordered and awaited the delivery of art materials – including the first airbrush and frisk film I’d possessed since the early 1990s.
I waited for coats of ink and acrylic to dry.
I messed things up and tried to fix them/flip them into analog, material ‘beautiful oopses’ in the absence of the undo function.
It took time.
I got ink under my fingernails.
I had fun.
I didn’t annotate with the things I thought I might.
A technoptimist litany – fusion, air mining, atmospheric carbon removal, desalination, detoxicifcation, open source spime-like fabrication of tools and shelter, universal healthcare, universal basic income, another green food revolution via precision fermentation, soil renewal etc.
Instead, more of an obscure mandala to magic forth the Kardashev Type 1 future.
Instead, Kirby dots, glow-in-the dark and gold metallic acrylic detailing – and two scrawled ink numbers: 104 for the energy potential of the Radically Expanded Donut – and 107 for the 10 Billion people it would hopefully support within the equitable, convivial zone it describes.
I also kind-of ended up making a cosmic goatse, but hey.
Acknowledgments
I’m grateful for the conversations I’ve had with Carolyn and Arjun – the tutors and of course Matt Ward for inviting me in.
A lovely little thing I just noticed this morning.
As you probably know, when you set an iPhone to charge and it’s oriented horizontally it now goes into a sort of ‘ambient mode’ for which there are various skins/settings.
One of my favourites that I discovered pretty accidentally is this clock with very jolly type. I’ve been using it for about a week but this morning I noticed something lovely.
The small ‘complication’ that indicates when I have my alarm set for nestles up against the bottom of the ‘1’ numeral here.
But then – a minute later…
As I said. Lovely.
Perhaps I ‘over-respond’ to gestures like this, having some insight into perhaps how it was made, or having been in similar situations where something like this is proposed, but – deprioritised, put in the ‘backlog’, interrogated or cross-referenced against some bloodless ‘user story’ for the value it would return on investment.
But – that value is not easily captured.
What this detail indicates is care, and joy
A generosity in the team, or individual that made this, that I feel when I see this every day.
Petafloptimism 