[SchroedingersCat]

Computer 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.

[Carlhole]

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.

Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[seldom_seen]

I never thought I'd become a Luddite but I'm starting to lean that way.

Welcome friend <secret Luddite handshake>. Let me gather up some tools and my sledge hammer...where do you want to meet?

(disclaimer to NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, KGB, MI5, Mossad, ABC, TNT, NFL, French Foreign Legion, WWF and other associated agencies. This post was a fictional dramatization of imaginary events. No data centers were destroyed or will be destroyed as a result of this post)

[I_Like_Plants]

Computer 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.

Smartest thing I've ever heard.

Sounds stupid because gadget-happy humans will only give up the keyboard when it's pried from their cold dead fingers..... but yes indeed IT must die.

[gg3]

Compare the energy cost of all of that communications hardware, to the energy cost of all of the physical transportation it has replaced.

In my own industry: a PBX that provides telecommuter services for about 100 employees uses less than 350 KWH/year, and replaces up to 24,000 round-trip automobile commutes per year.

Case closed.

[Micki]

This will sort it self out.
Once the companies start closing shops there won't be any shortage of electricity.

I would say the problem would be the oposite. Who is going to keep the internet up and running once all the large commercial players go bancrupt. Forget about ad sponsored free sites, fewer and more expensive isp's etc.
Probably there will be high dataload charges or similar from infrastructure backbone providers etc.

This fits perfectly with the NWO where free speach on the net is one of the biggest issues preventing speedy implementation.
A couple of governement (read international banking) websites with all the info people need will surely be kept running.

[SevenTen]

Compare the energy cost of all of that communications hardware, to the energy cost of all of the physical transportation it has replaced.

In my own industry: a PBX that provides telecommuter services for about 100 employees uses less than 350 KWH/year, and replaces up to 24,000 round-trip automobile commutes per year.

Case closed.

How much additional consumption is enabled through the PBX? How is that increased efficiency not being met with increased overall production?

Jevon's Paradox in an open-ended and growing human society.

Case re-opened.

[Kingcoal]

Hmm, and all this time I was thinking that it was because crude prices colapsed in 1984? Here, all along I had this theory of low prices = increased demand. Silly me, it's the evil computers! Thanks for setting me straight!

[gg3]

Jevons' paradox also works for population growth, so any nation that attempts to reduce its population to sustainable numbers will be swamped with illegal immigration from neighboring countries that are multiplying like mice.

So what?

In the end you die, so is that an excuse to commit suicide?

In point of fact I don't agree with Jevons about this, and I intend to sit down and have that discussion with him when we move up north.

The brief version is:

Companies and individuals who practice conservation gain an early-adopter advantage over competitors. This translates to a competitive edge in the market. Even where the cost of energy or a resource declines again due to short-term market factors, the edge still holds because the lower consumption level always translates to a lower level of cost relative to income. Also, early adopter practice at conservation translates to an edge in terms of speed of subsequent adaptations when resources again become scarce and prices rise.

We'll see what he has to say about that, and a few related points, all spelled out in more detail.

[Concerned]

Compare the energy cost of all of that communications hardware, to the energy cost of all of the physical transportation it has replaced.
In my own industry: a PBX that provides telecommuter services for about 100 employees uses less than 350 KWH/year, and replaces up to 24,000 round-trip automobile commutes per year.
Case closed.

Except those 24,000 people still have the same commute except to a shitty minimum wage, probably working two jobs as well earning less and driving more. LOL case closed indeed how ironic.

[TorrKing]

I think that "killing" the computers would be to start in the wrong end. As long as there will be electricity in the grid, the computers will run. I strongly doubt that they will be able to pour a similar amount of new machines out into the market though. So I'd rather expect to see a lot of repairs and scavenging a la this car photo from the oil drum.
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/IMG_8103_edit1_800.JPG

It will die, but it will take time. When the supply of fresh parts, and the old computers have been scavenged to the last bit it will stop. I doubt there will be anything but a few small, localized electricity grids running at that time anyway.

Maybe we should say this instead: Kill the electricity grid!

[SchroedingersCat]

Power usage of the computers isn't the point. 3% of our annual usage is minimal. It's the amplifying effect that computers have on our complexity levels that is the problem. Computers do only what humans can do. They just do it much faster. Just like the energy contained in gasoline puts the energy of 1,000 slaves at your command, the complexity in a modern computer puts the entropy of 1,000 slave at your command.

I've got several thousand e-mails in my mail program. Organized in folders, sub-folders etc. I can sort and search them in seconds. Several thousand pieces of paper would be much more difficult to deal with and would slow down my ability to do work or use energy to a more human level. Computers have amplified how much energy a single person can consume by reducing the time needed to do things. This is Jevon's Paradox embodied.

The widespread adoption of computers in the workplace has increased what some would call productivity, but in reality should be called complexity. When a society is in overshoot, the last thing it needs is more complexity.

[simontay78]

I view internet and IT as the savior of peak oiler...the virtual office at home can be achieved with high WIFI broadband. This can eventually the replacement for office as we can work at home with web camera and skype phones.

We can trade, buy, sell, shop, communicate, play, relax, watch, work with internet....especially educate and share knowledge like in po.com

We must maintain in contact regardless of high cost of connection and electricity....solar or wind power must be allocated for computer to connect to the world...so that we can reduce transportation (commute) to our office everyday!

IT is as essential as peakoil.com and energybulletin...etc etc...

WE MUST know what's going on! Information and knowledge is vital for all survival of human!

[Omnitir]

Yes, IT makes us more productive. As do all technologies.

But were do you draw the line? I mean why just target one of the latest technologies? What about, say, the Ford production line and Taylorism? This model greatly raised production capabilities and increased consumption, so would we be better off without such mass production? Or what about the printing press? This revolutionary information technology allowed for far greater dissemination of information then ever before and resulted in a great increase in productivity, resulting in further consumption. Is the printing press included in the target for the death of IT? It was after all one of the key factors that motivated Ned Ludd to start his movement that seems to be growing dangerously stronger today.

But wait, why stop with even early information technologies? What about the first IT, human vocal communication? It was because of this early communication technology that we gained the ability to hunt animals in ever greater numbers, eventually forcing us to adopt early agricultural techniques which rapidly spread thanks to our advanced communication technology (speech). But why stop there, as it was the discovery of controlling fire, possibly the first ever technology, that allowed as to work in the dark, to herd animals, and to cook meat allowing for easier digestion, all of which raised our productivity and allowed for greater consumption of resources.

So where exactly do you anti-technology people draw the line? If you think that a modern technology should not exist because of the increased productivity it gives us, then why don’t you apply this logic to all technology? Why do you think it’s any better to have a printing press, or to have the ability to speak, then it is to have modern IT? After all, they increased our productivity over their previous periods just as much as IT did.

Face it, we are either dumb animals with no control whatsoever over the natural environment, or we are racing towards ever more sophisticated technologies to manipulate the universe around us. You can’t pick a middle ground. We can’t go back to an earlier age and stay there sustainably for any length of time. We are either going forwards, or going extinct.

A position against IT, against any technology, is actually an argument for our species to be extinct.

[Carlhole]

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.

Ok, you first!
I mean...who is this "we" you are talking about. And since when does international society function in this way? - that some undefined "we" sets a diktat to do some harebrained thing, everyone else following along, like it or not?
And since when does a lack of commnication and participation improve the human condition? Computers enable improved communication and participation like never before.
Your proposed decree to abolish computers was declared on an internet discussion board, for f*cks sake.

[gg3]

Concerned, you entirely misread my posting.
It's not 24,000 people. Not one of them is fired. All they do is to switch from driving to the office to telecommuting.
It's 100 people. When all of them drive to work each day, their total driving adds up to 24,000 round-trips by automobile each year. When all of them telecommute, they do zero round-trips to and from the office each year. 24,000 round-trips are saved, and the PBX that handles the telephone aspect of the telecommuting consumes at most about 350 KWH per year.
The same 100 people. One hundred cars making a total of 24,000 round trips each year, or one telephone switch using less then 350 KWH per year which is about as much as one high-efficiency residential refrigerator.
I don't have the figures for the VPN that handles the computer side of the equation, but all of that equipment would be needed even if all of these workers were sitting in their cubicles downtown.
Communication displaces transportation. Anything you can do to substitute communication for transportation saves energy and material resources.

Re. Schroedinger, re the arguement against complexity.
You've probably run across Jason Godesky at anthropik.com. Brilliant advocate of neoprimitivism, very coherent arguements, very well written, and I can't wait to get my own site online so I can start debating some of his points at length.
There is a risk of conflating "complexity" with "embodied information" and throwing the latter out in order to get rid of the former.
Any highly-evolved tool has a high level of embodied information. This is true even of hand tools with no moving parts, and even of simple objects such as forks and knives. Complexity is an entirely separate axis of measurement. And for what it's worth, any decent industrial designer always strives for greatest degree of simplicity, on the basis that unnecessary complexity is unnecessary cost.

[killJOY]

And since when does a lack of commnication and participation improve the human condition? Computers enable improved communication and participation like never before.

Since when has "improved" communications "improved" the human condition?

The more communications has "improved," the worse things have gotten.

I couldn't care less about computers. This is cheap entertainment, as far as I'm concerned. When the lights go out, this computer is the last thing I'll miss.

Apes are idiots, and you're the leader of the pack, carl"hole".

[Carlhole]

And since when does a lack of commnication and participation improve the human condition? Computers enable improved communication and participation like never before.

Since when has "improved" communications "improved" the human condition?
The more communications has "improved," the worse things have gotten.
I couldn't care less about computers. This is cheap entertainment, as far as I'm concerned. When the lights go out, this computer is the last thing I'll miss.
Apes are idiots, and you're the leader of the pack, carl"hole"

F**k you, too.
Listen to your own advice, log off and throw your computer away.

[Omnitir]

Since when has "improved" communications "improved" the human condition?

The more communications has "improved," the worse things have gotten.

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?

[EnergyUnlimited]

Jevons' paradox also works for population growth, so any nation that attempts to reduce its population to sustainable numbers will be swamped with illegal immigration from neighboring countries that are multiplying like mice.

I had failed to note mass immigration into mainland China and the opposite is rather true.
Neither Pol Pot's Cambodia, probably the only country which successfully reduced its population by design, had atracted many immigrants at relevant time.

In the end you die, so is that an excuse to commit suicide?

That depends how are you going to die. Those with advanced AIDS or those with terminal form of cancer are excused...