My current thinking in terms of synergetic design inevitably encounters the notion of autonomy, i.e. the ability to decide for oneself the ins and outs of our existence. Of course, there are always aspects that are unknown to us and others that we have no control over, but this is part of the empowerment process: through our advanced understanding of the world and our own place in it, we can identify precisely the things we can act on, and if it is desirable for us to act on them, and the things that are beyond our reach.
When talking about autonomy, the subject of the computer world is omnipresent, sometimes presented as a flaw, sometimes as an opportunity.
After patiently weighing the pros and cons, and after having been deeply involved in the computer field myself (I have been doing it for several years as a job), I have come to the conclusion that relying on its use cannot produce an autonomy solution worthy of the name.
What is a "worthy of the name" autonomy?
Let's first talk about what I mean by satisfactory autonomy, because this notion can be quite variable depending on the person. To me, being autonomous means being able to meet all our basic needs by ourselves and through relationships (human or not) over which we have some control, "our say" as the expression goes.
Having control over a relationship means that its consolidation or rejection depends on ourselves and our will. In this, the frequent relationships we have with gas pumps are not autonomous, we tend to be forced by our lifestyles and by the infrastructure of our society to have interactions with entities over which we have no control. Our relationship with tax offices is another example. More or less, these are dominant-dominated relationships, because we are forced to submit to them. And in the latter case, only illegal disobedience can help us to get rid of it, and sometimes leads to situations where we totally lose control over our bodies (jail time).
What I consider to be basic needs are quite common:
to live safely in a home
to be able to feed, clothe oneself and have access to quality water
to have access to a minimal physical and mental hygiene
to live in a healthy environment (not very polluted, in all senses of the word, i.e. also in terms of noise, odors, or other nuisances)
to maintain nourishing human relations
to have the possibility to access a minimum of knowledge
to have the possibility to access a minimum of leisure and rest time
to be able to realize oneself through work, the foundation of a family and/or a political commitment
Of course, depending on the person, the people and the culture, the notion of what is the minimum acceptable varies.
In terms of autonomy, this means that if we have to meet these needs through relationships (to humans, to nature, to objects, to tools, etc.) over which we have no control, then we are not autonomous.
It is thus an ideal, an idea, in fact, a horizon which, without doubt, is never totally reached. But I consider it essential to strive for it and it is also excellent in terms of synergy (mostly because of the predictibility criterion).
Computer heteronomy
Nowadays, computing is everywhere and is even at the center of most of our activities. The fact, for example, that our source of subsistence is entirely dependent on a computer, and on all the components it needs to function, is a sign of great heteronomy, because we have no real control over the entities required for its functioning.
This does not mean that we will necessarily lose everything, it simply means that our way of life is weakened, unpredictable and potentially participates in phenomena that are antithetical to our values and sometimes also antagonistic (anti-synergetic).
In fact, no one is capable on a small scale of building a processor that does not require distant materials and advanced machine tools (except for very basic prototypes whose use is not necessarily useful).
The global complexity of computer science also challenges the criterion of simplicity of any synergetic design and the fact that a software is libre or not doesn't change anything: this complexity forces users to rely on people with relatively rare skills because they are very time consuming and intellectually demanding to obtain and maintain. This operating model can only centralize power beyond reason and put the actual power over our lives in the hands of computer technicians.
Computer science is therefore an automatic enemy of autonomy, and the same is true for all technologies whose creation requires the involvement of millions of people throughout the world and for which the only body that can claim any control is the world government, i.e. not us.
Moreover, the avalanche of so-called "smart" inventions, which the governments of almost every country are constantly promoting, remain above all an ideal means of surveillance and control, perfectly suited and conducive to totalitarian regimes.
When, as a young man, I started working in a job directly related to computer science, I had already asked myself the question of surveillance and control and I thought at first that it was important to keep up to date with the latest technological developments in order not to be subjected to rampant technocracy. I also had at the beginning a real enthusiasm for the librist movements, which I don't have much anymore for four main reasons:
most of these movements are not as libertarian and community-centric as I am and therefore end up pushing agendas that are quite the opposite of mine
I honestly consider that the libre projects that are worth my time and my money are quite rare (I stopped counting the technical and philosophical disagreements I had with free software developers)
no matter how much “librism” we put into IT, we will never be able to solve the problem of access to the materials composing the computers and thus the problem of hardware backdoors (and I don't believe in the fact that human beings soon manage to put aside their instincts of control, monopolization and domination in order to allow and work on purely humanistic planetary projects requiring a lot of efforts and materials, such as, for example, creating from A to Z 100 % libre and reliable computer motherboards)
because of the latter, I don’t see a positive outcome for the free software movement (that is not very valuable without a free hardware movement anyway), more like a Don Quixote vibe on this one, often a step behind when it is not some cases of useful idiots that participate in the promotion of an all-digital way of life that is too much compatible with the technocratic totalitarian actual system
Moreover, I think that the difference in the balance of power between the authoritarian entities (companies, states, agencies but also many people in general, let’s be honest for a sec) and those who genuinely wish to promote the freedom of people is too big for us to have any hope of success on the IT side, because that will of freedom, in my opinion for the current context, can only find its realization in small-scale autonomous communities (why not interconnected) and IT is precisely not compatible with this scale at the moment, nor it is technically able to ensure what we need to stay free!
We can also add that computers tend to produce tools that are bad for health (electromagnetic exposure, postures, eye strain, cognitive development troubles, etc), inducing a form of dependence on health services, sometimes important in the case of chronic diseases.
I think it is therefore important to reconsider our way of life without resorting to computers or, to be more precise, to go back to an analog world, without ceasing to consider what can be done simply, locally and with relatively accessible skills.
Happy transitions
However, it is worth clarifying what kind of come back I am talking about, and then I will present examples of analog alternatives that I think are desirable.
First, let's remember that what deserves to be met independently are basic needs. It is not absolutely necessary to reject from one's life everything that is related to computers, but rather that computers join the ranks of the little extras that we offer ourselves, gadgets, curiosities, that we can do without because they are not the center of our existence nor the sine qua non of it. That is to say, possibly drawing from the 50s, 60s and 70s, a model where computers were not yet the machine of domination and alienation that they are today.
Moreover, as with everything in nature, it is not possible to go from point A to point B immediately, there are always, even at infinitesimal levels, stages of transformation.
It would be counterproductive, for example, to give up the internet when we can't find an equivalent way to feed our needs for social interaction anywhere else, or to quit a job as a computer developer without having any alternative way to support ourselves.
Transiting to a more autonomous analog world is a project of its own and requires real effort, especially when we evolve in an environment where almost everyone will not walk this path and will prefer to stay in the computer matrix.
However, there are people who have this taste for staying away from any modern technology that reduces their autonomy (i.e. alienating technologies), and it is not only the Amish communities!
One of the fears often raised in the face of this type of discourse is also the idea that it is pure regression and a deprivation of creative freedom. I think this reaction is more emotional (due to addictions and conditioning) than reasonable. Because not only do analog systems have infinite possibilities of improvement (like any system), but the creative possibilities allowed by computers are not as vast as they seem, and almost always rely on forms of tools found in the analog world.
We could also point, on the contrary, how computers limit our creativity and experience, by providing a framework that is encapsulated in a universe bounded to its digital nature, that has, for example, no other texture than a 2D slick screen, no other audio capability than digital formats, that are necessarily restricted by the ability of humans to code what they understand of the phenomenon of sound. This lead us, in the end, and in many cases, to lock ourselves up in an impoverished version of reality that always need to come back to the real world to make interesting progress.
In fact, computing often appears more as an easy, lazy and cost reduction choice, than as a creative catalyst and the experience that it provides is rarely to the measure of its analog equivalent, even if I do understand that one of the main reasons that make us be appealed by the virtual computing world is how the real world has become almost unlivable in many places, especially for hypersensitive people, and how the media propaganda succeeded to make us believe that it is even worse than we previously thought.
We can also question the possibilities of diffusion of a work thanks to the Internet and the importance that this work will have in the virtual world. Indeed, is broadcasting a puppet show on the Internet to the whole world more gratifying than if it had been performed in a school in a nearby village? Is it more interesting to inspire someone somewhere we will never know or the children of our community?
In other words: what are we really looking for through computers and the Internet? Do our aspirations really find their full expression through this virtual means of communication?
This is a real question, to which I think there is no general answer, but which, in my opinion, deserves to be seriously asked and genuinely answered.
Examples of analog alternatives
replace PDFs and ebooks by paper books
replace digital audio formats by vinyls and record players but also simply by going to concerts
replace emails with mails or simply wait to see the person to share something
relocalize basic production and consumption through local markets
use radio to broadcast information locally
use morse code or light signals to communicate at short and medium distances in a targeted way (between two interlocutors for example)
use printing presses instead of digital printers
use navigational instruments such as paper maps, compasses and possibly astrolabes and sextants rather than GPS
return to simple, mechanical and electrically powered tools and vehicles
use analog thermometers again
play board games instead of video games (this also applies to music, dance, sports, etc.)
use flyers again to disseminate political information (which also avoids the bubble effect of social networks and search engines)
consider watching videos and films collectively in cinemas and use drawings and comics for their solitary and domestic equivalent
doing without all household appliances containing electronics
As said before, these solutions often take us back to the 50s, 60s and 70s. The first benefit of a return to analog objects will be a greater ease of understanding and repair. I even consider that it helps to better understand the world, because the specificity of analog is not to decorrelate the incoming physical quantities from the ones that come out, contrary to the digital which tends to blur our perceptions of reality.
However, it seems quite intuitive that this return to the past, in a way, and in spite of the improvements that are always possible, also requires a return to stronger and better human relationships to be lived in a pleasant way and not like a painful obligation.
An anti-conformist intention
Of course, it is not said that seeking this return to analog technologies will be seen in a positive light by the current system, which wishes on the contrary to digitalize life and to control human beings like cattle by means of high technologies of surveillance and constraint.
This same system will therefore be able to maneuver skillfully in order to keep us away from this kind of projects because they are in their very form antitotalitarian firstly by their absence of surveillance devices.
This opposition of nature between analog autonomy and digital tyranny sooner or later raises the question of the law as an instrument of power and domination and therefore also raises the question of legitimate disobedience in the face of a model that locks up minds and bodies.
In a next article, I will detail the reasons that currently push me more than usual to fill my library with paper books that I consider valuable in terms of content.
Towards an analog world
I come from the analog age. I don't know what happened to me that I got so sucked in to all the technology and gave up my data so freely! I found that the mindless control of it filled some sort of void in me. Now I am back pedalling slowly, trying to find my boundaries between selling my soul / convenience/ being part of the world as it is/ regaining some autonomy! It's a complicated web. Giving up my smart phone for an old Nokia..... I miss GPS.....ffs!! I am learning to be okay with getting lost again. It is challenging to learn to be an off grid human in a world of controlled robots.... no disrespect meant to them, I was them too. Strange times.
Personally, I'm hoping for a massive realignment that continues to mitigate and ideally eliminate the barriers to this vision of autonomy in the digital world. You're absolutely correct that there is no real reason to spend any time worrying about the..intangible at the expense of each other.