[Ender]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'C')omputer manufacturing is one of the most resource and energy intense industries. Where will these resources and energy come from in a world where both are dwindling? Check out some of this light reading: IT and Environment Initiative

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer with 17-inch CRT monitor are estimated at 6,400 megajoules (MJ) or 260 kg respectively. This indicates that computer manufacturing is energy intensive... life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to operation (19%).

[EndOfGrowth]

Computer manufacturing is one of the most resource and energy intense industries. Where will these resources and energy come from in a world where both are dwindling? Check out some of this light reading: IT and Environment Initiative
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer with 17-inch CRT monitor are estimated at 6,400 megajoules (MJ) or 260 kg respectively. This indicates that computer manufacturing is energy intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 11, an order of magnitude larger than the fact or of 1-2 for many other manufactured goods. This high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined with rapid turnover in computers, results in an annual life cycle energy burden that is surprisingly high: about 2,600 MJ per year, 1.3 times that of a refrigerator. In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to operation (19%).

[EndOfGrowth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') concur. Computers should be used at least 5 years, even 10. Maybe as a "oil era souvenir", I'm saving for a MacBook Pro. It uses many (hardware and software) energy-saving techniques, and I have a hunch that powerful and efficient portable computers ("converted" to use full DC energy) will be useful after PO.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', '
')Computer manufacturing is one of the most resource and energy intense industries. Where will these resources and energy come from in a world where both are dwindling?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ender', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', ' ')let's kill all the computers.

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')
What about the very first communication technology, human vocalisation? When hunter-gatherers first started communicating with each other in order to better hunt, did such communication not improve their lifestyle? Can you explain how more certainty of a meal made things worse for them?

[Omnitir]

Judgie, take it easy. You are resorting to the child-like name-calling mentality of someone like pstarr. Us Aussies are better than that :D

I would argue that a technology is a method, or a process, not necessarily a machine. The word comes from the Greeks meaning craft and speech. Hunter-gatherers teaching each other to better hunt is therefore a technology, no?

But despite where we decide to state where technology begins, my point still remains valid, and UNCHALLENGED in this discussion.

1. Some people here are simply against technology. It’s a simple fact that getting annoyed at terminology does nothing to change. “I.T. must die” is clearly an anti-technology sentiment. How can you possibly argue otherwise? It’s certainly not pro-technology now, is it?

2. My still unchallenged point - if you believe that we shouldn’t have the latest technology that enabled more effective consumption, how can you believe that it’s okay to have ANY technology that enabled more effective consumption? But of course, all technologies enable more effective consumption, so by being against I.T. for this reason, by the same logic you really should be against every single technology, right back to the wheel, fire, and perhaps human speech if you regard this as a “technology”, or a skill, that also enabled more effective consumption.

Please, someone refute my argument. Why is it okay to draw the line at IT, which is merely the latest in a long line of technologies that allowed for more effective consumption?

[SchroedingersCat]

Oh, come on. How much of I.T. infrastructure is used in any real productive manner? My company gets about 1 million e-mails a month. 97 percent of those are spam. Of the remaining three percent, maybe .5 percent are business related. So, all the energy and resources to move those 1 million emails result in maybe 5000 business related emails in a month? Now multiply that by the entire Internet. An efficiency of .5 percent?

I looked at how my company would be able to function without any computer infrastructure (disaster planning.) Very little impact except for the lack of reports to feed to the C-level exec's. Millions of BTU's per month. Staff time. Environmental costs for the hardware. HVAC costs. All of this so that these empty suits can pretend that some computer generated report justifies their jobs.

I.T. for the most part has not improved our human condition. Aside from its communication function, it is hurting more than helping.

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'J')udgie, take it easy. You are resorting to the child-like name-calling mentality of someone like pstarr. Us Aussies are better than that :D

I would argue that a technology is a method, or a process, not necessarily a machine. The word comes from the Greeks meaning craft and speech. Hunter-gatherers teaching each other to better hunt is therefore a technology, no?

But despite where we decide to state where technology begins, my point still remains valid, and UNCHALLENGED in this discussion.

1. Some people here are simply against technology. It’s a simple fact that getting annoyed at terminology does nothing to change. “I.T. must die” is clearly an anti-technology sentiment. How can you possibly argue otherwise? It’s certainly not pro-technology now, is it?

2. My still unchallenged point - if you believe that we shouldn’t have the latest technology that enabled more effective consumption, how can you believe that it’s okay to have ANY technology that enabled more effective consumption? But of course, all technologies enable more effective consumption, so by being against I.T. for this reason, by the same logic you really should be against every single technology, right back to the wheel, fire, and perhaps human speech if you regard this as a “technology”, or a skill, that also enabled more effective consumption.

Please, someone refute my argument. Why is it okay to draw the line at IT, which is merely the latest in a long line of technologies that allowed for more effective consumption?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', '
')I.T. for the most part has not improved our human condition. Aside from its communication function, it is hurting more than helping.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '
')Do you support continued population growth? or do you believe that there are too many "beans" and we need to lose a few for your Techno-future to be sustainable?

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'O')h, come on. How much of I.T. infrastructure is used in any real productive manner?

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '
')Do you support continued population growth? or do you believe that there are too many "beans" and we need to lose a few for your Techno-future to be sustainable?

[TheDude]

I remember reading about how the change to automated telephone services ("Push 1 for Ghawar, Push 2 for Canterell," etc.) had actually decreased efficiency overall, even for companies which think they're saving money on not having to hire an operator - generally they still need to have a front desk secretary who fulfilled the same switchboard function in the past anyway. This reminds me (reverse situation) of how the railroads resisted implementing air brakes for the longest time - it was much simpler to just throw the injured/dead brakemen off the train, they were only making $1.50/day anyway. The brakemen had to run along the top of the train and work the brakes on each car - very dangerous job. When Congress forced them to implement air brakes in the 1890s they quickly made up the cost of installation due to increases in efficiency.

I recently bought a Toughbook - figure that'll be good down the road. Those should be in every home, a good durable laptop running ca. 1.5Mhz is all anybody needs in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

Agree with Omnitir about how the Net has helped a great deal with research. Agree with the rest about how it's also helped the whole world to buy too much crap they don't need - was looking at some Pier 1 junk mail, these very ugly chairs made out of some exotic wood. What kind of forest are they clear cutting for this piss poor quasi modernist rubbish?

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I') remember reading about how the change to automated telephone services ("Push 1 for Ghawar, Push 2 for Canterell," etc.) had actually decreased efficiency overall, even for companies which think they're saving money on not having to hire an operator - generally they still need to have a front desk secretary who fulfilled the same switchboard function in the past anyway. This reminds me (reverse situation) of how the railroads resisted implementing air brakes for the longest time - it was much simpler to just throw the injured/dead brakemen off the train, they were only making $1.50/day anyway. The brakemen had to run along the top of the train and work the brakes on each car - very dangerous job. When Congress forced them to implement air brakes in the 1890s they quickly made up the cost of installation due to increases in efficiency.

I recently bought a Toughbook - figure that'll be good down the road. Those should be in every home, a good durable laptop running ca. 1.5Mhz is all anybody needs in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

Agree with Omnitir about how the Net has helped a great deal with research. Agree with the rest about how it's also helped the whole world to buy too much crap they don't need - was looking at some Pier 1 junk mail, these very ugly chairs made out of some exotic wood. What kind of forest are they clear cutting for this piss poor quasi modernist rubbish?

[SchroedingersCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')2)
To be able to get all of the books I want to read that would otherwise be out of my reach, through Amazon.com

[efarmer]

The emegence of UPS and Fedex to do rapid delivery along with the emergence of IT technology was bound to lead to the natural exploit of the end consumer buying direct in such a manner as to cut out the overhead and profit of a local stocking merchant. But this is only possible when you have both ingredients:
CHEAP OIL and IT TECHNOLOGY.

Remove cheap energy for rapid transportation and this exploit rolls over on it's side quickly. But I.T. energy usage is still a much better usage than moving people to information instead of information to people, it already takes hundreds of thousand out of the daily commute.

I do agree that the great embodied energy of personal computers should require that they have the operational life of other appliances such as refrigerators. Linux based free OS software and basic communications appliance systems will fill this niche, even if it terrifies a wasteful industry that wishes to obsolete and replace itself every two years to maintain it's darling of consumption status.

[Rogozhin]

This room (one of our six) is using roughly 2.4mw-h. This is a state of the art datacenter that uses external air as much as possible. I believe that the building was designed to be retrofitted for cold storage of vegetables and fruit.

[Rogozhin]

The latest development in RSTC;

This room will be using at least 9MW.

[centralstump]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'C')omputer and network equipment consume about 74 terawatt hours per year in the U.S. That is about 3% of total electrical usage. In and of itself, not too bad. Here's the rub: information technology has been pushing the rapid overuse of natural resources and fulling the ever-growing hallucinated economy for decades.

Energy consumption per capita in the U.S. dropped after the oil shocks of the seventies -- until about 1984 when it started to rise again. This is about the time that personal computers became common in the workplace. I.T. has assisted humans in the ever more efficient conversion of raw materials into finished products.

I am an I.T. professional going back to those days of the 1980's. I've seen the progress in technology and what it has done. I never thought I'd become a Luddite but I'm starting to lean that way.

With apologies to Shakespeare, the first thing we do let's kill all the computers.