April 29, 2017 at 04:09PM

Reddit scan:Decentralizing production and creating a circular economy.These two things could potentially be the biggest revolution since the Industrial and Informational Revolutions. I want to show you why we might want this and hopefully show you how it is possible.Industrial society is clearly at a crossroads at the dawn of the early 21st century. We all know this. Our mode of production has been one which is massively wasteful and which creates massive negative externalities for our physical environment.A circular economy is one which seeks to get more in line with the natural systems we exist in. Which seeks to mitigate waste, use wiser materials, and re-cycle as many things as possible.Meanwhile, decentralization, as the sidebar of the subreddit notes, is one of the major trends of our time. In this TED talk, Yochai Benkler makes a powerful case on the trend and how it may lead to fundamentally new modes of production.We know that with things like 3d printers there is at least a little bit of this potential looming. Although they clearly have some areas which are lacking in the ability to fundamentally reshape our production, they have been used for some very powerful applications so far, such as GE using the technology to manufacture jet engines, as well as other powerful uses of the technology.The nature of modern production is one where software can provide the blueprint for what we need constructed, and the nature of software is that, when not artificially constricted, it is easily duplicatable at what amounts to zero marginal cost. This means that in ideal circumstances and with existing sunk costs into productive technology, the cost of production could reduce to little more than the cost of materials. (This is a dream scenario, of course).With emerging AI software, we have the capacity to produce highly skilled/superior designs which a human being alone could not come up with. This is shown in the following video at the point which I've linked: https://youtu.be/aR5N2Jl8k14?t=185So, for certain applications, it may be feasible that we could decentralize production using open software and distributed manufacturing.There are other ways production can be decentralized too. And ones which also are highly desirable in the context of creating a circular economy. For this, I speak of biological manufacturing.The company ecovative design has a library of a few fungal cultures which are useful in creating an array of materials. Some strains can be manufactured (or rather "grown"), into a wood-like material. Others can create a foam material useful for packaging and insulation. Buildings have been constructed out of mushroom material. This video explains how the time to production for mushroom materials, or in other words the amount of time needed to create the material we are using, is far superior to all other materials we currently use (wood, plastic, etc.). The material can be composted, and also is stored carbon in itself.This can clearly be decentralized. Ecovative sells GIY ("grow it yourself") kits. Furniture, building materials, insulation, packaging materials, temporary-use materials (which we so wastefully rely on plastics for), etc.This is only the tip of the iceberg of what biological materials can feasibly do for us. I'm a biology student myself, and the amount of possibility there, I can see clearly, is just massive. Only just now are we beginning to truly look deep into the entire world full of possibility that nature has already elaborated into existence.Now, with all this, we must also be careful not to become so optimistic as to become unrealistic. There are domains which do not lend themselves well to decentralization. Some supply chains that exist today cannot easily be co-opted into localized decentralized production. We must realize that. However, here, I can propose the following.First I'd like to link to a project being called local loop farms. This is mode of creating a more circular economy and decentralized production of food via creating a productive flow of nutrients, with agricultural/food waste as the source input, where the food waste is converted into fish food via black soldier fly biomass, which becomes fish biomass, the fish waste then fuels the growth of plant biomass (this is aquaponics), and excess nutrient goes to growing spirulina and crayfish. According to the creators of this system, it can:fit into the area of one city block, and in that space, can convert 28.38 tons of food waste into 19,000 heads of lettuce, 997 lbs of Tilapia, compost 100 tons of agricultural waste, and produce 1.35 tons of fish feed, on a weekly basis, all while using 90% less water than traditional agricultural systems.These claims I'm not sure if they are true, but I do know aquaponics can be a highly productive system. You are taking the waste from one element and bringing it through a process where more biomass is created from that waste, just as is done in natural ecosystems.The same kind of principle can be applied to supply chains and production which remains centralized and is resistant to full decentralization.In the diagrams provided in this article, its shown how we could reduce waste by making cell phones easier to repair. Industry is resistant to this practice. However, the benefits at a systems level could be similar to the nutrient flow schemes in an aquaponic system.Instead of a one way path, from Raw Material Mining -> Producer -> Consumer -> Landfill, if our technology was easier to repair, instead you could have several decentralized local repair businesses for each kind of technology. And at the end of the scheme, you could have full recycling processes instead of waste. This would in effect create several hubs of economic activity throughout the cycle, from repair shops to the facilities which handle recycling, and these can operate in nearly every locality. And so even in industries that are resistant to creating decentralized production, we can still somewhat decentralize the schema for who is capturing wealth in the process, and make the entire process more circular.To accomplish this one, however, we'd have to wage a pretty political battle against the existing major manufacturers to win the "right to repair". The good news there at least is that it is in nearly everybody's interest, and so it is a fight that could be won someday.So how might people actually go about bringing this into existence?Well, I really believe that changes such as these can only be brought about by the decentralized nodes of people who are interested and committed to creating such a new industrial revolution. Luckily, I think this is happening, but there are ways it could be catalyzed at a much deeper level than is occurring presently.One practice you might take on is to look around and take note of everything you consume, or have already consumed in order to create the lifestyle you currently live. Look at each thing. It can be helpful to create a list. Or perhaps a better way would be to create a flowchart, which can look like the following.Appliances -> branches into all of the following: >Refrigerator, microwave, stove, television, smartphone, computer, blender, toaster, coffee maker, vacuum cleaner, Tools -> >Drill, chainsaw, shovel, rake, hammer, screwdriver circular saw, etc. Yard and Garden -> >Pots for plants, hoses, watering systems, lawnmower, rainwater harvester, landscaping materials, compost, Plant seed stores and nurseries, decorations, Furniture -> >Chairs, table, couches, etc. House -> >Frame, insulation, drywall, wiring, plumbing, roofing, etc. Personal -> >Clothing, shoes, toothbrush, other personal products Others -> >Vehicles, bicycles, energy production, Food -> (this one I won't list but its also important to analyze, its one of the biggest way we can vote with our dollars for an alternative system). (Note: this is all in a first world context and needs in other places are different.)This is just off the top of the head. But now, look at each element and try to envision what can be done differently in a way that decentralizes production and creates a circular economy. Some are harder than others. Our discussion of mushroom materials already listed some domains. Other domains are being worked on by people such as Open Source Ecology and local makerspace innovators. However, its all something which needs to be grown through trial and error. Initial iterations of making things never come out the best. It takes repeated trial and error to create viable products.Such a model is working against the benefits of the economy of scale. And for this reason it must find other ways to create similar benefits. I'd propose that perhaps the "scale" of a decentralized mode of production is something which manifests horizontally rather than vertically.In other words, the more people working on things like this, and the more streamlined and effective their ability to share information, collaborate, and repeat each other's work, the more horizontal "scale" is built into the system, and the more effective and efficient it can become. And so the more work that is put into this sort of network, the more benefits of scale a decentralized mode of production can create.Imagine if there was a network of 20,000 "makerspaces" all over the world, all sharing information and working on designs and models, and iteratively improving on each other's designs.We'd need a good system for information sharing. Perhaps something like appropedia, but maybe you can even make it more suitable to this sort of working by including aspects of version control and including the software needed to share complete designs.Of course, it is a huge challenge altogether. But once one or a few problems are solved in this way, the interesting thing is that those become "sunk costs" and now form the ability to stand on others shoulders and do even better and with more ease of initial access.Now, I'm probably missing parts of the picture. This is a 'Wicked Problem', and what I'm doing right now is similar to the parable of the blind men grasping the elephant, in that I do not have all the information.I simply am reporting on potential that I see, and of course, the hard part is in the actual doing, which would be full of unforseen difficulty and roadblocks.But the potential for something like this, I think may be real. And if so, even in only some sectors, that would be a profound opportunity.So in conclusion, what would the initial steps be to begin creating this revolution? Well, its twofold. One is to focus in on solving a problem in a way in line with this kind of economy. Model how it can be done. Second, is to create the infrastructure for informed communication among the 'nodes' who work on these problems, and begin to spread the word and promote a wider vision among them.Thanks for reading. http://ift.tt/2ph7G4Y by Towson Makerspace