In the Mobile computing, is there a way forward? thread, I had mentioned this subject. I figured I would split it off into its own thread so that anyone who is interested in it can dialogue about it.
I will post a brief summary to start off. The following is actually part of a much, much larger research paper/project, but I feel as if I should share this part here…Reference and resource links throughout, although many here are probably familiar with a lot of this already…Feel free to skip over this if you just want to comment on the topic itself…
General Premise
Humanity needs to completely transform the manufacturing process of computers all over the world (into a “circular economy” by following “permacomputing” principles) until everything is environmentally-friendly, ethically made, built to last, and free for everyone. One way of transitioning towards this is by repairing, recycling, and creating computers on the local-level through sustainable makerspaces / repair cafes.
Brief Assessment of Problems
Speaking generally, there are many issues when it comes to the manufacture of electronics. To give a brief gloss of a few of them:
1. Ecological Impacts
There are a huge number of pollutants associated with “e-waste” (i.e.: the electronic devices that end up in landfills). These include plastics, heavy metals (like mercury and lead), and so on. They destroy the environment and harm the wildlife within it in various ways. The recycling programs for handling it are often a joke as well.
2. Human Rights Abuses
Not only are many of the materials used to make electronics toxic to humans, but nearly every aspect of their manufacture is filled with abuse of some kind (e.g.: unsafe working conditions, child labor, overwork, etc.). That includes everything from the mines that supply the raw materials to the assembly lines within the factories.
3. Privacy Concerns
With the prevalence of things like “smartphones”, “smart” home devices, and the idea of “smart cities” being rolled out as a “solution” to the problems of urbanization, nearly everything is being connected together into a giant digital “panopticon”, where a relatively small group of people can monitor the activities of the many. Those conditions are often encouraged by “data brokers”, businesses that gather personal information and sell it, and government organizations that do “mass surveillance”. They usually feed back into one another, and together, they form a giant “military-industrial complex” focused almost entirely upon commerce and control.
All of those same issues carry over into more specific hardware components to some extent. For example:
- Some computer processors have “backdoors” built right into them (e.g.: The Intel Management Engine and The AMD Platform Security Processor).
It is hard to find out about the existence of such things because the design of most computer processors, as well as the majority of instruction sets that control them, are “proprietary”. One of the only exceptions is RISC V, which is an “open standard” for public use. Generally, we need more hardware projects like the MNT Reform Laptop and Andrew Huang’s Precursor, which can be completely taken apart and inspected by the individual using it.
A lot of software is vulnerable in a similar manner, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example:
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has developed a lot of “spyware” (i.e.: software that is intended to monitor what someone does on their computer). The public has only been made aware of some of it years after it was used (such as “Carnivore” in 1997, “Magic Lantern” in 2001, “CIPAV” in 2007, etc.).
Since we cannot look at the “code”, or program instructions that make up many pieces of software, it can be difficult to verify what exactly it does in the background. Ideally, all software would follow the “free software” philosophy (and use licenses like the GNU GPL).
What can we do? While standards for “open architecture” and “free software” are important, they are not enough all by themselves. But if we can simplify the production and programming of computers to the point where anyone can do it, then it becomes easier to make it both transparent and sustainable. It can also help put computers and other technologies into the hands of people who might not have access to them otherwise.
Brainstorming The “How”
It is simple to share educational information on how to program. Showing how to make modern computer chips step-by-step is a lot more involved though. It is a very complex process that requires sophisticated techniques based upon in-depth Physics and Chemistry knowledge. It also uses a lot of (incredibly expensive!) specialized equipment.
Further, thanks to “miniaturization” (i.e.: the push towards ever smaller components), deciphering how pre-existing items work by “reverse engineering” them can only be done with some of the oldest of computer processors.
Despite those obstacles, it seems possible to create “retro”-like computers on the local level by “leapfrogging” off of the historical developments that lead to computer chips in the first place. The work of Sam Zeloof and Jeri Ellsworth demonstrate how computer chips can be made in a small lab or at home. And James Sharman’s 8-bit computer is a wonderful example of how just about everything else that makes up a computer can also be built from the ground up.
Finding new strategies for digital preservation is important. This includes making a record of old computer parts (e.g.: databases like The Retro Web, WikiChip, CPU DB, CPU World, etc.). These designs can be reused or adapted, and much can be learned by looking at trends in their development over the years.
Computers with slower speeds are still good for many applications, so long as we simultaneously get rid of all of the “bloat” within the software. To quote Ville-Matias Heikkila’s article “The Resource Leak Bug of Our Civilization”:
In other words, every time that computers have gotten faster, a lot of software has expanded to use up as much of those resources as possible. Is that “old tech” really “obsolete”? Again, if we are going to scale down hardware, we also have to simplify the software running on it. The “demoscene” community is particularly skilled at squeezing incredible performance out of relatively “slow” computers.
Another inspiring example is the work of Devine Lu Linvega and Rekka Bellum. One can learn a lot by exploring a summary of their projects, and by diving into their philosophy about hardware and software. What can we do with this type of approach?
Imagine community-operated spaces where we can create simple “single-board computers” (SBCs) from scratch, and then learn how to program them to do some sort of useful task, like running agricultural equipment to sustainably produce our own food? If we work together, these sorts of spaces are within our grasp! Our resources may be limited, but our resourcefulness is not. How can things be regenerated?
It is possible to make an entire machine shop out of scrap aluminum. Can a similar approach be used to make devices like “3D printers” and “CNC machines”? We could then use these to create the “printed circuit boards” (PCBs) necessary for other electronic devices, and to form the plastic cases that protect them with filament derived from recycled bottles.
Once we have a good foundation, we could then research how to make all of it more efficient and ecologically responsible. People become discouraged from practicing “amateur science” or “invention” when they compare their own resources to a laboratory run by a giant corporation or government, but I think significant technological breakthroughs could be made without a huge budget. For example:
-
It is possible to do more with less. The field of “chaos computing” attempts to do exactly this, making computer processors that are more efficient with fewer parts by designing them to reconfigure themselves based on the type of task that they are doing.
-
“Biomimicry”, as the name implies, is to mimic the patterns and processes used within Nature to make things more efficient. The field of “neuromorphic computing” attempts to create designs based on the structure of the brain. Organisms are filled with these types of relationships!
-
In some instances, we could even get the design to make itself through “evolutionary algorithms”. The field of “evolvable hardware” attempts to do this, and The Open Source Evolvable Hardware Project has continued the work of Adrian Thompson that helped to initiate this field.
-
We can also search for alternative methods and materials. The parts that make up a computer processor, such as “transistors” and “logic gates”, can be formed out of biochemicals. This is done within the field of “DNA computing”.
“Genetic engineering” is becoming available to the home experimenter. There are even student competitions in “synthetic biology”!..Imagine “growing” your own computer?
These things can only constructively benefit society when they are developed and applied responsibly by every individual out in the open, rather than being hidden away within government and corporate research laboratories for the purposes of commerce and control.
TL;DR: How would you go about making computers from scratch at home in ways that are sustainable, and what are the worldwide social implications of this?
Here, I am mostly referring to hardware (and to a lesser extent, software). If anyone is interested, I can create another topic about creating community networks.