 
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 01:59:11 EDT
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Subject: busy times, biotech, futures
To: +dist+~js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Message-Id: 
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA
Comments: Validated

Sunday, April 19, 1992

I'vee been in the 'earning money' phase-- not as much time to write...

>Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 15:21 EST
>From: ALLENS%EARLHAM.BITNET@bitnet.cc.cmu.edu
>Subject: Biotech in these communities
>
>        I've seen quite a bit of discussion of information tech of all
>types in these communities, and some on using sustainable tech. What I
>haven't seen much of is discussion of biotech.
>        This field (applied molecular genetics) is what I'm personally
>going into. I have a choice between working for a firm, only on what can
>be conveniently patented and profits made off of, or working for a
>university and having to do things I'm not suited to do- namely teach.

Well, I'm hoping that biotech can be a major focus of these communities,
and a major source of income. It seems clear that biotech is the
future-- the nanotechnology that drexler makes so much of already exists
in the molecules of biological organisms, the molecules of our own
bodies.

Also, compared to research in mechanical nanotech, or fusion, or new
architectures for computer chips, or a host of other technological R&D
types of projects, biotech research is much more likely to be within
our reach financially.

I don't share Jesse's concern that biotech will lead to frankenstein
like problems-- certainly it could, but it will anyway, wether it's us
or the corps who are conducting the research. Frankly, I trust my own
types of people more so than I trust the corps.

>        The specific area I'm interested in is gene therapy, and its
>extensions to not only cure genetic diseases, but make up for where
>evolution left off.

I know less about this than I know about genegineering bacteria to
produce more efficient ligninase-releasers or more agressive alcohol
yeasts-- perhaps you could explain, if you have any ideas, how this type
of human genetic research could be carried out in the smaller, cheaper
labs that would be available to the communities.

My idea of genetic research focuses on biological studies to find
already existing organisms and molecules and genotypes that we can
'domesticate' or modify to produce valuable new bio-products.

>        I'm wondering if these communities will include resources for my
>type of research. If they don't, then I may cheer them on from the
>sidelines but I certainly won't join one.
>        I can see possibilities for such communities being easier to work
>in than the present maze of restrictions on genetic research. If they can
>fund research without NIH grants, then most of the needless (I'm not going
>to be working on biological warfare) restrictions won't affect me and
>fellow researchers- and you'll get a LOT of researchers with that as a
>selling point.
>        -Allen

I would say that wether or not these communities have genetic research
facilities would depend entirely on the help and efforts of genetics
researchers-- I'm no molecule-pusher, and I can't tell you that I'm
going to build and equip a hundred thousand dollar lab  in the hopes
that some genegineer will come along and make it his or her baby.

You tell us wether or not _YOU_ can do research in these communities--
you tell us wether or not we can come up with the incubators and
sequencers and other necessary technology at a price we can afford and
with any reasonable hope of producing profitable discoveries.

What is needed is a geneticist, or more ideally a team of geneticists,
who do the necessary study and research, and gather the skills and
equipment, for setting up a 'guerilla', or cottage industry, genetics
lab. Only that type of focus and specialization can make biotechnology
workable in these community settings. I can't do it. The computer hacker
types can't do it. The artists and writers can't do it.

Only the geneticists can do it. So, you tell me, is it possible for
these post-industrial villages to include biotech R&D and sales as part
of their structure and economy?

Personally, I hope they can-- and if you can't be the team-member
responsible for the biotech department, I'll keep looking till I find
suitable people. (I already have a friend who I'm grooming for this
role-- we'll see what happens after he gets his PhD.)



>Date: Sun,  5 Apr 1992 16:33:44 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Jon C. Slenk" 
>Subject: yow
>
>I agree with the idea that we should try to get the tools out as quickly
>as possible. My brother has a book that discusses building houses
>without the use of "standard" construction techniques. The idea was that
>current methods are destructive and  generate a lot of waste, when one
>could use materials already available to construct economical and thus
>environmentally sound abodes. Admittedly, they aren't luxurious, but the
>basic idea can be improved upon. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the
>title of the book is, or who the authors are. It does serve to indicate
>what kind of tools are available, though - even if we can't get hardware
>into people's hands, we could start with information.

I have a couple of hundred of these types of books in my library, and
all the experience we'll need in construction and housebuilding.

I agree we need to get this information out-- but to who? Who wants it
and is ready to use it. Perhaps even more important-- who will be
allowed to use it? Certainly not ordinary americans, most of the time,
in most areas of the country.

Costa Rica, possibly, or Puerto Rico, the Marshalls, or the US Virgin
Islands-- all of these places will have some building codes and
government interference, but less than in the lower 48.

As I see it, the first few communities would function (and profit from)
as 'universities', researching and teaching the needed
community-building, self-reliance, and high-tech/low-tech fusion skills.
Information, in the form of books, videos, audiotapes, classes, and
'wandering instructors', would be a primary product sold into the
planetary marketplace by this 'planetary university' and test-model
community.

>Jesse says>
>    And what is this about being part of a "globally competitive economy"? I
> thought that was something worth *avoiding*!  Self-sufficiency is
> attractive to me precisely because it would take away so much impetus to
> compete, compete, compete... I see capitalism as part of the *problem*
> we've been considering, and I thought that you were coming from that
> direction as well.

That's pretty much what the communes of the sixties were saying, and it
formed the basis of their structure-- but almost all of those sixties
style communes folded after a year or two.

More importantly, this doesn't provide an "option" for the millions and
millions of typical modern western people-- they won't trade their
illusion of security, their automobile, vcr, and health insurance, for
life in a "self-sufficient" primitive community. They'll keep on with
their greedy and competitive lifestyle untill the earth is used up and
polluted to death.

Therefore, I believe we will have to build communities that are _highly_
competitive in the global economy-- while at the same time providing a
more leisurely lifestyle for the members. How do we do this? By keeping
down overhead, co-operative use of office and manufacturing facilities,
and all the other built in efficiencies of this whole corporate tribe
approach.

>Question: So what exactly are people envisoning for these new
>communities? It seems like Jesse is very free form - these communities
>could spring up in the middle of a city ghetto, or out in remote farm
>land. I guess I had the internal image of Brunner-esque (Shockwave
>Rider) groups, if only because they could avoid being associated with
>the problems of the "real world." Ideas?

You know, I've never read shockwave rider, despite having looked for it
for several years. Can you provide a summary of what one of these
Bruner-esque groups would be like?

I think I've typed enough words describing the communities I'm talking
about into this list that I don't need to answer this question. So,
Instead, I'll take this oppurtunityy to repeat a very, very important
part of my thinking:

What is needed is not one type of community, but dozens, even hundreds
of differeing types of communities adapted to the needs of differing
people, and differing regions. Ideally, all of these communities would
be linked together, sharing information and discoveries. Ideally, also,
they would be linked together in "time-sharing" arrangements, so that
the members of one community could arrange to spend a few months, or a
few years, in another community, experiencing a different lifestyle, and
exchanging skills and knowledge.

>What would that take? Computer systems? Cars? Plastics? Where do we draw
>the line? Should we avoid being hooked up with the rest of the
>information systems of the world, for our own protection? I would really
>miss my computer set up, but perhaps it is necessary? Production will
>always have side effects. We have to figure out what they are and if
>they are acceptable.

Some communities should be isolated, some should be connected. Decide
which type you personally want to live in, and gather together a team of
like-minded friends, and go to work building the community of your
dreams, aided as much as possible by an international network of
commited community design & construction specialists. This list is the
embryo of the international network of community builders I envision.

Personally, I want a community with full-blast linkage, and this is very
important to me. But I also want to live in a rural, natural setting,
and to have the option of pulling away from the community for a few
months to live in a thoreau-style hermitage.

>Can we survive if the majority of the power structure is controled by
>people who would find us perhaps threatening? How many people would side
>with us? What percentage of the population? Would any of those on our
>side have any clout, or are we all bums :) ? Perhaps we could be
>stainless steel rats...

We can survive if we appear non-threatening. Conversely, we can survive
if we appear powerful, but don't try to stake any claims on the Masters
territory (i.e. don't print money, continue to pay taxes, don't forment
armed rvolution, etc.)

>If we start a community, will others follow our example? It is often the
>first group of pioneers that break the ice and get things really going,
>even if their first attempt isn't a great success. What matters is that
>people cared enough to try, which gives others something to emulate and
>build upon.

Ultimately I think we need to build these communities because this is
what we _LOVE_, this is the way we want to live, this is the pioneering
that we want to do for ourselves.

If we are successful, and build a better way of life, then others will
follow us. That will be the true test of our acheivement-- that others
want to emulate what we have done.

To little time to write, these days, but I'll try-- got to go now, Bill

 prev message 
 next message